Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 17 - Evidence - May 1, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to study the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) is in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am calling to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators, today we are going to continue our study of the Main Estimates for the 2011-12 fiscal year that is before our committee.
[English]
Today we are pleased to welcome officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Public Service Commission, who are here to discuss the impact of budget reductions, specifically the processes involved in addressing the human resources reductions and the tools available to employees who might find that their job has become redundant.
From the Public Service Commission we are pleased to welcome, for the first time in her capacity as President of the Public Service Commission, Anne-Marie Robinson. She is accompanied by Hélène Laurendeau, Senior Vice-President.
[Translation]
Welcome and thank you for being with us today.
[English]
Ms. Robinson, we have a long history of meeting with your predecessor and look forward to a continuation of that. We expect we will have you in for a more general meeting, which we will arrange at a mutually convenient time.
We also know the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat very well. You provide us with a lot of background information, which we very much appreciate. From the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat we have Daphne Meredith, Chief Human Resources Officer; Ross MacLeod, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance Planning and Policy Sector, and Marc-Arthur Hyppolite, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector.
Ms. Robinson, I understand you have brief opening remarks. I will then turn to Ms. Meredith and we will go to a discussion for a period.
[Translation]
Anne-Marie Robinson, President, Public Service Commission: Mr. Chair, thank you and good morning. I am accompanied by Hélène Laurendeau, senior vice president, Policy Branch.
We are pleased to be here today along with our colleagues from the Treasury Board Secretariat with whom we share responsibilities for managing workforce adjustment.
We all acknowledge that the implementation of fiscal restraint will be difficult for organizations and employees. While Treasury Board Secretariat has lead responsibility in managing workforce adjustment, I can assure the members of this committee that there has been a great deal of collaboration between our two organizations.
We also worked with the Canada School of Public Service, bargaining agents and other key stakeholders to coordinate our efforts with respect to workforce management.
The Public Service Commission has two specific roles with respect to workforce adjustment, the first occurs in the beginning of the process, the second takes place closer to the end.
I would like to begin with the first of these two roles, providing guidance and support to departments in selecting employees for retention or lay-off.
As part of our mandate, the PSC provides overall policy direction to assist deputy heads, managers and human resources advisors in making decisions based on merit and consistent with the values of the Public Service Employment Act.
[English]
There are generally two scenarios that can arise from budget reductions. In the first one, a work unit can be completely eliminated. In that case, all of the employees in that scenario would be declared surplus and then they would have different options that would come into play. In the second scenario, a work unit would be partially eliminated. Here, we need a method for selecting — out of a group of employees who perform similar duties — which employees would be retained or laid off. These employees are selected in accordance with the regulations of the Public Service Commission.
This brings me to the Guide on the selection of employees for retention or lay-off, which we have recently updated to provide more detailed and concrete guidance on how to appropriately apply this process in specific situations. It is assisting managers in running merit-based structured processes to help select employees who will be retained or laid off and to do so in a fair and transparent manner.
To date, PSC employees have provided intensive training to some 3,700 managers and human resources advisers based on specific situations and decisions.
We believe that a preventive, proactive approach and upfront support are critical in helping operational managers fully understand and apply our guides and tools appropriately. We all believe we need to get this right the first time.
I would now like to turn to several initiatives it is by the Public Service Commission to facilitate workforce adjustments. Alternation is part of workforce adjustments negotiated by the Treasury Board Secretariat. It allows surplus employees who want to stay in the public service the possibility of exchanging positions with those who may wish to leave. Under normal rules, both the employees staying and the employees leaving would be subject to the full assessment of merit, even though the employee leaving will never perform the duties of positions which are going to be eliminated. In order to facilitate these exchanges — and to avoid spending public funds on evaluating employees who are about to leave the public service — the PSC has used its powers to exclude those persons leaving from the application of merit, recourse and other provisions of the Public Service Employment Act. Full merit provisions still apply to the appointment or deployment of persons who do stay in the public service.
[Translation]
The second initiative is a temporary mechanism that relates to official language requirements. Some of the employees facing involuntary displacement have second-language evaluation results that are older than five years. Under our current policies, SLE results can be valid as long as employees remain in their current positions. However, when employees are appointed to new positions, the SLE results must have been certified within the past five years. In the situation where a large number of people being displaced all at once may have SLE results older than five years, this requirement would prevent them from being appointed or deployed to positions for which they have already met the required language levels and would otherwise be fully qualified. Therefore, we have amended our policies to allow managers to use SLE test results that are over five years old to appoint these employees to bilingual positions.
These employees must, however, obtain new, valid SLE test results within 12 months.
This provision is time-limited and it will be in place until March 31, 2015. The PSC will be closely tracking and monitoring every case where departments and agencies use this temporary measure. Managers are expected to ensure that the bilingual functions of the position are carried out in the interim, so that service to the public and language of work requirements of the Official Languages Act are respected.
[English]
I would now like to turn to the PSC's second role with respect to workforce adjustments: our responsibility for managing priority entitlements.
Under our legislation and regulations, priority persons are eligible to be appointed ahead of all others to vacant positions in the public service, provided that they meet the essential qualifications of the positions.
Surplus employees and laid-off individuals have entitlements to priority appointments. These entitlements help the public service retain skilled and competent people in whom the Government of Canada has invested in terms of training. These entitlements also allow us to redeploy employees and therefore avoid the cost of hiring new ones. The PSC is responsible for ensuring that these entitlements are observed, and it does so through the priority administration program.
Before proceeding with an appointment process, departments must first clearly demonstrate that they have consulted and considered the list of priorities by obtaining a priority clearance number from the Public Service Commission. We have enhanced the program to better support the needs of departments and employees and to help prepare for anticipated increases in the number of priority persons.
The PSC has seen an increase in the number of new surplus priorities over the past year — from 226 to 576. We expect this trend to continue in the next year.
We have reallocated resources to this program and we will be monitoring it very closely. It is critical that this program function well during this time of transition, and it will become a key source of hiring over the next couple of years.
[Translation]
The PSC is committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that our policies, guides, tools and programs provide effective direction and support and we will continue to adapt them to reflect changing needs. We will also continue to use our oversight mechanisms and report to Parliament on those areas for which we are responsible.
Thank you and I would be very happy to respond to your questions at the appropriate time.
[English]
Daphne Meredith, Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to speak to the human impact of the planned reduction in employment in the public service.
Building on the remarks made by my colleague from the Public Service Commission, I would like to highlight for you the work we have done to engage and prepare for these workforce reductions.
[Translation]
To provide you with a brief explanation of the role of my organization within the Treasury Board Secretariat, the office of the chief human resources officer leads people management across the core public administration by developing workplace and workforce policies and programs. We centrally manage terms and conditions of employment, compensation, and pension and benefit plans. We also work to develop executive leadership.
[English]
As you now know, as a result of Budget 2012, federal employment will be reduced by about 19,200 or 4.8 per cent over three years. Taking into account attrition, the planned reduction in departmental spending is expected to eliminate about 12,000 government positions over a three-year period.
We know this is a difficult time for those affected. Caring for them, valuing every person, and treating them fairly and with respect is fundamental to the public service and to the values that support the way the government deals with its employees.
To that end, several actions have been initiated over the past year by my office in partnership with the Canada School of Public Service and the Public Service Commission to prepare organizations to implement workforce reductions. A key component of these activities is respecting the existing workforce adjustment measures that were negotiated with unions and that are part of collective agreements. These workforce adjustment agreements provide structure for departments to plan and manage any reductions in their workforce.
I would like to take the next few minutes to outline what we have done.
Over the past year, we have stayed connected with unions and engaged them through the National Joint Council on our comprehensive approach to workforce management. As outlined in these agreements, organizations must consult with unions and inform senior officials of the responsible union when any employee is affected.
Since spring 2011, I have provided frequent updates to deputy ministers through our recurring workforce planning and management leaders forum, various advisory committees and at our usual weekly meetings.
[Translation]
Last year, I also began a series of monthly emails to deputies and heads of human resources. These emails referenced our suite of guidance documents and tools for senior leadership of departments, human resources staff, and managers regarding key elements of the adjustment process.
Furthermore, starting in August 2011, my office held weekly calls with heads of human resources to identify and share information on issues that were arising in anticipation of workforce reductions.
[English]
Beginning in September, face-to-face training sessions were led by the Canada School of the Public Service for thousands of executives, managers and human resources staff across the country. As you have heard, the Public Service Commission led efforts to improve the priority administration system and facilitate mobility and adjustment.
While central agencies have worked hard on this file, line departments have also risen to the challenge. For example, Public Works and Government Services Canada expanded their capacity to meet increased demand for services related to retirement. As we moved from sharing information into the implementation phase, we began holding weekly forums beginning in February for those leading implementation efforts within their organizations.
One of the issues faced by deputy heads was whether to offer employees a guarantee of a reasonable job offer. When making this decision, deputy heads must consider whether they know or can predict that employment will be available for the affected employee in the department or the core public administration. To make this determination, deputy heads must consider the employee's qualifications and competencies, opportunities within the department as well as within the core public administration, and the current and anticipated number and types of priorities on what is known as the "priority list" that is managed by the Public Service Commission.
To help deputy heads make the best decision, my office provided their organizations with monthly data reports, which included information on their demographics, attrition rates across occupational groups, and contingent workforce for planning purposes.
[Translation]
Employees in the core public administration who are not given a guarantee of a reasonable job offer are eligible for alternation. Alternation occurs when an affected employee is able to exchange positions with someone who is not affected but wants to leave the public service.
To facilitate these decisions, my office launched an online forum internal to the federal government in February 2012 to make possible alternations across the core public administration. So far, there are over 2,500 posts from employees on the alternation forum. It is important to note that management must approve all individual alternation arrangements and must ensure that those arrangements are made in the best interest of their organization and the public service.
[English]
Throughout this process it is important to keep employees engaged. When it comes to notifying employees, managers are encouraged to work closely with their human resources adviser throughout the process and to keep lines of communication open with employees at all times.
Mr. Chair, deputy heads are ultimately responsible for all decisions related to their workforce, yet they must do so in keeping with the government-wide objectives of renewing the public service and ensuring that we have the right people in place to not only meet the needs of Canadians today but in the years ahead. To assist them, my office continues to stay in contact with deputy heads and those supporting them in decision-making and will continue to make information readily available about the resources and support mechanisms that exist to help their employees.
At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You have made many interesting points, from which I am sure several questions will evolve. I have many senators on my list. We will have to try to stay to about five minutes per senator, and then if there is time for round two we will go to round two. I will begin with Senator Neufeld, the deputy chair of the committee, from Charlie Lake, British Columbia.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you for being here today, folks. When I see the number 19,200 over three years and 7,200 of those will be through attrition, how do you figure out through attrition? Maybe I should first find out from you what you mean by "attrition." Do you mean people who have reached retirement age and they are just retiring? If that is the case, some of the programs that they may be head of could be relatively important programs and want to be kept. Do you replace those people with someone coming up through the public service? How do the numbers work out when you do that?
Ms. Meredith: I will take that question. When we say attrition, we mean public servants leaving the public service, and for the most part people leave the public service when they retire, through voluntary separation at retirement. This is something that we manage continuously in the public service, like any organization would, filling the gaps that are left by people who are retiring; and I might note that at this point we have a rate of attrition of about 12,000 per year, and so our challenge is to try to move people into the positions that are left by those retiring and to manage our workforce in a way that reduces the human impact of the changes that are being made to programs and services.
Senator Neufeld: Let me take that further. If this is someone who is managing a relatively important portfolio within a department and they are retiring, they are one of the 7,200, how do you plan to keep that program active? It is fine to say that person is retiring. That is one of 7,200. Do you replace that person or is that program just kind of done with? Is there nothing else that takes place? It is fine to say through attrition they retire, but is someone coming up to fill that position or do you just decide that that program is no longer around?
Ms. Meredith: No, the government makes decisions on the programs and services it wants to offer in the future, and it has made decisions on where it wants to reduce those programs and services. Our challenge is to reorient the workforce so that it is serving the programs and services that remain and is able to mobilize its workforce to deliver those programs and services, taking into account retirement.
Senator Neufeld: I appreciate that.
The other question is about the reduction by 19,200. How many positions within the federal government are now vacant, meaning have not been filled? There has to be a whole bunch of positions that have not been filled, and do you just take those and eliminate them to be part of the count of the balance of the 12,000?
Ms. Meredith: Decisions on organizational structure are being made pretty much continuously through all departments of the public service. There will be decisions on where we are reducing programs or services, and then there will be a decision to render those positions vacant or to actually eliminate those positions. The next question is what is to be done with the people who are affected by the elimination of those positions.
It is not that we eliminate positions because there are retirements. Positions are eliminated because decisions are made on the programs and services that will be offered.
Senator Neufeld: How many full-time positions are vacant now within the federal government?
Ms. Meredith: I can answer rather how many employees we have in the federal government. I cannot speak to the number of vacant positions.
Senator Neufeld: You do not know the number of vacant positions?
Ms. Meredith: That is not something that we track.
Mr. MacLeod: We do not track that information.
Senator Neufeld: You do not track the number of vacant positions?
Ms. Meredith: No.
Senator Neufeld: That surprises me, to be perfectly honest. The government I came from kept track of it, and we knew all the time how many positions out there were being advertised for full-time employment that were not filled, and what you are saying is you do not pay attention to that?
Ms. Meredith: That is something that each department would pay attention to in their own domain.
Ms. Robinson: I can say the Public Service Commission does not track the number of vacant positions, but we do have information about the number of positions being advertised at any given time. I do not have that information, but I can send that information to the committee about how many positions are being advertised right now.
I should emphasize that the universe the Public Service Commission has responsibility for is a little bit smaller. Some additional departments are under the purview of the Treasury Board, but within the approximately 220,000 public servants under our mandate, we do monitor the number of positions that are being advertised. In our annual report in the fall we report on the year-over-year activity, and we did see last year a reduction overall in the size of the public service of 0.3 per cent, and we have seen in the past year that hiring has pretty much flattened out or reduced a little bit. I think that was in part in preparation for this transition.
The Chair: As a point of clarification, you indicated 12,000 employees by attrition each year over a three-year period, and that is what we are talking about here. That is 36,000. You only want to get rid of 19,200 positions. Why do you need to issue all these termination redundancy notices? Attrition will take care of it all for you over three years, will it not?
Ms. Meredith: Attrition is a powerful lever to help with adjustment, but the decisions are being made on programs and services now, and sometimes there will not be a match necessarily between the skills that we are losing and the programs that we are continuing to deliver, so there is a matching problem.
However, there is a potentially great powerful use of attrition, but of course the attrition would have to land in the right geographical areas and within the right skills categories, and there may not be a perfect match.
Ms. Robinson: If I could also add, Mr. Chair, this is why we have the priority administration system as well, because if persons who are declared surplus wish to stay in the public service, they have the opportunity to go into the priority administration system. That system has the capacity to redeploy qualified persons across the public service.
Senator Ringuette: My first question is to the Treasury Board. Does your department establish the pay scale for deputy ministers?
Ms. Meredith: Privy Council Office does that.
Senator Ringuette: Do you establish the pay scales for the EX positions?
Ms. Meredith: Yes, we do.
Senator Ringuette: Could you supply us with the pay scale for the EX level, please?
Ms. Meredith: I would be happy to follow up with that.
Senator Ringuette: Could you also provide this committee with the rationale of establishing the amount of bonus pay and the amount of pay-at-risk that will be provided to the EX level, which category and what process is used to evaluate which one will receive the bonus amount and pay-at-risk?
Ms. Meredith: Would you like me to give a brief outline of that now?
Senator Ringuette: Very brief, but we certainly want the details.
Ms. Meredith: Certainly. A certain proportion of executive pay is called pay-at-risk, which means it is pay that is held back until the end of the year when they prove their performance and are assessed on the basis of performance.
Senator Ringuette: Pay that has been held back. There is a schedule of pay and the performance pay, which is a combination of either the bonus or the pay-at-risk, and that is assessed at the end of the year and it is in addition to their pay scale; am I not right?
Ms. Meredith: Yes, you are right that they get their paycheque. In terms of the established pay, sort of entitlement, what we refer to as pay-at-risk is the pay that is assessed at the end of the year based on performance.
Senator Ringuette: Exactly. Could you send us the details and maybe, after we have looked at the details, you can come back and we can question you on those.
Ms. Robinson, in the commission's report last fall, in regard to audits of human resources, you indicate the following:
However, a number of observations and issues that were identified as areas of concern . . . persist. These include inconsistent monitoring of appointment processes for improvement and accountability; a lack of sufficient, appropriate and accurate assessment and documentation of merit; and inadequate rationales for non- advertised appointment processes that do not demonstrate how the process respects the guiding values
In view of your statement in this report, how will the commission, through its responsibility, make sure that the assessment of merit is applied with all the downsizing that is happening throughout government? How will you ensure that? Never mind the deputy minister; are you going to consistently monitor and report to Parliament what is going on in regard to merit-based assessment and sufficient and appropriate documentation for these appointments, whether you are looking at this new alteration or whatever process in the next three years? Do you have the resources to do so?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you very much for that question. This is something that we have thought a lot about at the commission, and I agree with the senator that it is something that is very important going forward.
I would say by starting out we have taken a very proactive approach. We took the view at the commission that these events will happen quickly. Many people will be impacted by this transition, so it was important for us to work with our partners at the Treasury Board and the chief office of human resources to do a lot of training up front to ensure that. As the senator has said, it is important that we work with managers and human resource people who are doing the work on the ground, so training is the key starting point.
Then subsequent to that as well, if someone has been through a selection for retention process, that person has the right of appeal to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. In addition to that the commission, we have an audit program that is a risk-based program that we apply on an annual basis. Going forward we are able to do in the range of 10 to 12 audits per year and we are able to sustain that, notwithstanding the reduction to our department. That is an important priority for the commission to maintain.
In the coming years, as we do our audits we will also be able to look at these transactions. I would put the emphasis on the fact that it is important to work on a day-to-day basis with departments. We have staff available, as people call in, to provide expert advice for people who are putting these processes in place right now.
Yes, the commission will be reporting its results to Parliament as we come forward to your committees and also through, of course, our annual report.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, are you going to another subject? We have to move on.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, a very important one.
The Chair: I will put you on round two if you are going to another subject.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for being here this morning.
Ms. Meredith, I want to talk about the numbers to get a handle on them. In your opening remarks you say that federal employment will be reduced by about 19,200 over three years, and then you are saying the reduction in departmental spending is expected to eliminate 12,000 government positions.
How do you reconcile those two numbers? I just want to be clear.
Ms. Meredith: Based on the plans the department has provided us they indicated that about 19,200 positions would be eliminated as a result of implementing the reduction proposals. Through departmental efforts we will be trying to reduce the human impact of those reductions to a minimum, so their estimates — and this is a work-in-progress that they are working on very hard now — are to bring down the numbers of actual people who are then made surplus to about the 12,000-employee level.
Senator Marshall: Does that mean that at the end of the three-year period there will be 12,000 people without a job? Is that what it is saying?
Ms. Meredith: That is the estimate, yes.
Senator Marshall: In your remarks it sounded like, leading up to this point, you were involved, or your organization was involved, at a very detailed level. Is that information done on a departmental basis? For example, yesterday they announced the layoff of 3,800 employees and it broke it down that Parks Canada was probably the one with the highest number.
Would Parks Canada be aware now of how many of their people will actually go out the door and be without a job?
Ms. Meredith: They will be working through it. They will know how many positions they are eliminating at the end of the day and they will be working hard to work with their affected employees to see how many they can find jobs for within the public service. They might have an estimate, but it is one that they will want to continually try to reduce through active measures they take to try to help each individual employee, and to determine who is going to be retiring and whether those positions that are going to be left vacant might be filled by people who are in these positions that will be eliminated.
Senator Marshall: The re-employment priority list that you referred to in your opening remarks, how long does that remain in effect? If someone is laid off and there is no position for them, they end up on the re-employment priority list, and how long is that list in effect? Do they have two years or three years? Is there a time limit on that?
Ms. Meredith: That is determined by the collective agreements. This has been agreed to by the unions. An employee, once declared surplus, has the option to remain as an employee for 12 months with salary on the priority list, after which, if they have not found a job, they are laid off and they remain on the priority list for an additional 12 months.
Senator Marshall: For the purposes of the Main Estimates that we are looking at, there is a decrease in personnel expenditures. Even though there is a decrease, is there provision there for severance pay or redundancy pay, whatever those benefits are that employees are entitled to?
Ms. Meredith: Those are paid for by the department. It comes out of the departmental budgets.
Senator Marshall: Even though the estimates show a decrease from last year, the Main Estimates, there is provision there for the severance pay and the redundancy pay?
Ms. Meredith: It is up to each deputy head to manage. I should clarify. Severance pay, per se, is not paid for from within departmental budgets, but the workforce adjustment-related transition support is paid for within departmental budgets.
Senator Marshall: You are with Treasury Board, correct?
Ms. Meredith: Yes.
Senator Marshall: In terms of the role that Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission play, it is traumatic when employees are let go. Who polices this to ensure that it is done in a fair and equitable manner? Is it both of your organizations? How much detail do you get into — recognizing that departments do, in some cases, have their biases with regard to employees — to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and equitably?
Ms. Meredith: Ms. Robinson and I work together and engage departments on a weekly basis in terms of how they are managing through the workforce impacts. We are there to support them and to talk about issues of principle, about details of the Workforce Adjustment Agreements, and about the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act, which is really the domain of Ms. Robinson.
We had a previous question about the application of merit, which is one of the most important fairness principles in selecting employees to be retained for the future. I will let Ms. Robinson speak to that issue.
Ms. Robinson: I would put the emphasis as well on the fact that it is a shared responsibility. To clarify, the PSC has two specific responsibilities, one with respect to the selection for retention process. That is applicable, as I mentioned in my remarks, where you have a group of employees who perform similar functions and you may be reducing it by a percentage, so you have to decide among those employees who will be retained and who will be laid off. That is a merit-based process prescribed by our regulations; therefore, we also have the ability to do oversight on those activities and ensure they are done in accordance with the values of the act.
In addition to that, it is also the commission's responsibility to manage the priority administration system. The way that works is that when departments want to staff new positions, they must first come to the commission to get a clearance number. We will only issue the clearance number if there is no one in the priority system who has been declared surplus. We have other types of priorities as well, such as veterans and people whose spouse has been relocated. We have many different types of priorities, and they have the right to be appointed ahead of others.
The Chair: Is there a priority list within the priorities or are they all in there together?
Ms. Robinson: Yes, there is an order of priority. I will ask Ms. Laurendeau to explain the technical details behind that.
The Chair: We would be interested in knowing where these surplus employees fit in the priority list, whether they come after the Armed Forces personnel or before, that kind of thing.
Hélène Laurendeau, Senior Vice-President, Public Service Commission: The legislation provides three priorities that come ahead of all other priorities. The first priority is people who are declared surplus within their own department; second is people who are on leave without pay and come back; and third is the people who are actually laid off. Then you have a series of priorities that come through the regulations, and those people are treated on the same level.
The priorities are provided for in the regulations, and those comprise the people who are surplus but outside of their own department; the people who have relocation of spouse priorities; and people who become disabled or are medically released from the Armed Forces or the RCMP. Those are all within the same level of priority and they come after the first three priorities that are provided for in the legislation.
The Chair: The first three you gave us are level 1, and then the others are level 2?
Ms. Laurendeau: That is correct. That would be a better way to put it.
Senator Marshall: Would employees know where they are placed on the priority list, whether they are in the first or second category?
Ms. Laurendeau: They would be aware of the source of their entitlement. Someone who is surplus within the department would know that their heading of priority is above that. There is no ranking order in the priority list, because what we do is match competencies with whatever requests we get before placement. However, they would know that. For people who have similar competencies, we would follow the order that is provided for in the legislation.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much for being here. I have a couple of questions.
First, clearly there is cooperation between your two organizations; however, I am still not clear in terms of what your organizations are responsible for. There seems to be quite a bit of crossover. Can you briefly explain your responsibilities?
Ms. Meredith: Certainly. As chief human resources officer, I have a range of responsibilities, which includes pension and benefits plans for public servants, collective bargaining and overall compensation issues, the terms and conditions of employment for all public servants, as well as establishing the workplace and workforce policies respecting public servants. We help establish the right human resources information infrastructure, supporting departments in their management of human resources. I am also responsible for executive policies and for talent management, so leadership of the public service.
Ms. Robinson: The Public Service Commission is responsible specifically for appointments to the public service, as well as non-partisanship in the public service. When it comes to the application of the Workforce Adjustment Directive, our role in selection for retention is key because it relates to the people who will remain appointed to the public service. That is the linkage there, and it is based on the principles that we also use for appointments, which are the merit-based principles, and also processes that are fair and transparent. In addition to that, the priority administration system is the mechanism to reappoint people to the public service from a variety of circumstances. That is why it is related to our mandate of appointment.
Senator Buth: I think I understand that.
In terms of the priority administration program, Ms. Robinson, you said that the PSC has seen an increase in the number of new surplus priorities over the past year, from 226 to 576. Why has that been increasing?
Ms. Robinson: I think it has generally been increasing because of the fact that the government has started to implement its budget reductions. However, some of the numbers we are seeing in the party system right now are a result of decisions that may have been taken in the fall or earlier this year related to previous reductions from strategic and operating reviews.
I would like to point out to the committee that when someone is declared affected and they have to go through a selection for retention process, there is a time lag of several months before they find out whether they are declared surplus. If they are declared surplus, they have a period of four months within which to decide whether or not they want to take advantage of one of the voluntary departure options; or, if they want to remain in the public service, then they go into the priority administration system. There is a fairly big time lag between the time when someone might receive a letter that they are either affected or declared surplus and the time when we would see them appear in the priority administration system.
While all of that is happening, there is also the possibility for these same persons to alternate. That is the exchange where persons who have been declared surplus and who may wish to stay could change positions with someone who may wish to depart the public service.
I would expect that bigger increases in terms of priority administration will likely start to happen in September and through the fall months. I would be pleased to come back to this committee and report the specifics at that time.
Senator Buth: To clarify: Employees who are receiving notices right now could be receiving a notice that they have been designated affected or surplus?
Ms. Robinson: That is correct.
Senator Buth: The affected employees will then go through a process where they could be retained or could be told that they are surplus.
Ms. Robinson: That is correct.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for coming this morning. First, I am looking at the CBC figures of the job reductions and certainly Atlantic Canada is being hit harder than many other regions. Do you have a breakdown? It says, "Atlantic 1,510." Do you have a breakdown for that, each province?
Ms. Meredith: I do not have a breakdown. No, I do not have those numbers.
Senator Callbeck: I am trying to understand the steps that the civil servants go through when they get this letter. We have been talking very generally about it, but let us take a specific case. In my own province we are losing our one and only EI processing centre, which is 30 jobs in Montague. It will have a tremendous affect on the employees, their families, the town, the whole Island. We also have many cuts in Veterans Affairs, ACOA and so on. However, if you just take those 30 people, will you go through the process that they are going to go through? They get a letter that tells them they are put on notice. Now, what does that letter say, where do they go from there, what are their options and so on?
Ms. Meredith: We have just noted that there are two kinds of letters that they might receive. One is that they are surplus and the other is that they are affected. In the case that they are given a letter that says they are surplus — in other words, their position is being eliminated — then they will have a period to decide whether they are going to stay in the public service for another year and remain on the priority system or whether they will take a transition support measure, which gives them a sort of financial support.
Senator Callbeck: What is that measure?
Ms. Meredith: It depends on years of service. It could entitle an employee to up to 12 months pay. That is a benefit that is received. If they have been in the public service for 16 years, then it would amount to 12 months of pay. It increases up until that point. They get that financial assistance as well as some assistance and counselling to look at their future.
Senator Callbeck: Do they get an education allowance?
Ms. Meredith: There is that third option where they can get the financial assistance, but they are also entitled to up to $11,000 of assistance to continue education. To be eligible for that assistance they would need to submit the receipts from an educational institution demonstrating that they are continuing to take training. They have that option as well. There are essentially three options: One is to remain in the priority system — and in the Public Service Commission's hands for being considered for job openings — and continue to get a salary, or take the transition support measure with the financial support that is involved with that of up to 12 months salary, or the financial support plus the education allowance.
Senator Callbeck: If they decide that they want to stay in the system, take me through what the process is after they get that letter.
Ms. Meredith: Depending on their collective agreement they could have between 90 and 120 days to make that decision. To the extent that they decide to remain in the system, they will be actively looking for a job with the assistance of the Public Service Commission. I would refer to Ms. Robinson to respond on what happens exactly when they are in the priority system.
Since they are continuing to be paid, they may continue to be given work, although perhaps different work than what they are used to doing, but still work for which they are qualified. That is the picture for those people. They continue to be on staff, they would be looking for a permanent job, and they continue to make a salary for 12 months.
Senator Callbeck: We are talking about a specific example: the EI processing centre on P.E.I. It is being closed out. Now, will those jobs that will be offered be on P.E.I. or might they be offered a position in another processing centre? Do they have any preference if they want to stay on P.E.I?
Ms. Robinson: Yes. Depending on what their occupation is, et cetera, individuals may be referred to jobs across the country. They would also have the option of only asking to be referred to jobs that are within a certain geographic area, but I would say that would limit the number of jobs for which they could be referred to.
Senator Callbeck: If there is a job for them in Ontario, do they get compensation for transportation and so on?
Ms. Robinson: Yes, I believe they do, because they are internal employees of the federal government and there is a Treasury Board policy which covers persons for their mobility, their moving costs and that sort of thing. My understanding is that they would have their expenses paid, for example, if someone from Prince Edward Island took a job in Ottawa or Toronto or Vancouver.
Senator Callbeck: If they do not want to leave the province, how long are they on that surplus list?
Ms. Robinson: Generally speaking, if they are not given a guaranteed reasonable job offer, they would be on the list for a period of 12 months, while they receiving pay. Then after that they are laid off for another 12 months. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, if there are any other jobs that are staffed in the public service in that geographic area for which they have the qualifications, they have a priority entitlement to that position. In that case, the departments would not be able to staff those positions without first looking at the persons who are in the priority system.
Senator Callbeck: I can go on.
The Chair: Yes, you can go on in round two, if we have time. Thank you.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you for being here. It is nice to see you and I am sure you will understand my question, as usual.
Ms. Meredith you said on page 3 of your speech that you have been sending out monthly emails to deputies and heads of human resources. These emails reference a suite of guidance documents and tools for senior leadership of departments, HR staff and managers.
For these people you will be moving around, does the issue of gender-based analysis and their capacity to (a) understand it and (b) to do it successfully enter into that tool bag?
Ms. Meredith: We continue to have support for gender-based analysis. There is nothing about downsizing that would diminish the effort that is made and we have existing tools in support of departments doing gender-based analysis in their domains as well.
This is support that is provided through our website and reductions do not affect that commitment or capacity.
Senator Nancy Ruth: My question is really about the people who will have to be cut or who will stay on to be put someplace else. Is a capacity to understand a gender-based analysis one of the criteria the deputies and ADMs are looking at when they select who they want?
Ms. Meredith: As Ms. Robinson pointed out, they will be looking at retaining the skills that we need for the future. Gender-based analysis is one of those skills, so yes, it is very much still a part of that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is it identified in your emails that this is one of the tools they should respond to?
My problem is I do not see enough of it. I know when the budget comes out, there is a tick-off column for "GBA has been done," but there is no further information on what analysis that was and what impact it had. It is difficult for us to get a hold of hard data about what the analysis is regarding the various stuff that comes through here. When there are people being put on reserves, moved around or whatever, it is a criterion that is important to me because if those managers, ADMs and deputies do not get it, it will not be "got."
I want to know where that element is in this whole measurement of moving people around.
Ms. Meredith: I will take note of your point, senator, and perhaps we could pursue that separately. Certainly the intention is to retain the skills that we need and that gender-based analysis is certainly one of them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Madam Laurendeau, in the priority list you mentioned, you talked about disabled veterans. Where do veterans rank on that list?
Ms. Laurendeau: The priority list has extended priority to veterans who are medically released. There is in the legislation, however, for recruitment purposes a preference that is provided to veterans in general. However, that is for hiring purposes when we do outside recruitment.
The priority, per se, under the regulation is specifically for any type of medical release. It used to be only for people who had been injured in the line of combat but it has been extended for all those who are medically released.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It would therefore be reasonable to think that if you were an able-bodied veteran, because the government is not hiring, given this melange, it will be some time before they get on what would be the priority list. Did I understand that correctly?
Ms. Laurendeau: I am not sure I understood your question.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There is a preference for disabled veterans.
Ms. Laurendeau: That is correct.
Senator Nancy Ruth: However, say a woman comes out of the military and she is looking for a job to transition to. Since the government is not really hiring, because you are trying to move this pool of people around into jobs, it is unlikely a veteran like her would be on any kind of a priority list at this time until the government again starts to rehire from the public.
Ms. Laurendeau: A veteran writ large would not be on the priority list under any circumstances. That said, there is a possibility to actually extend areas of selection to include people from the Armed Forces, which would include people who are about to become veterans. Veterans through outside hiring processes could actually be considered in preference when there is outside recruitment.
However, there is no priority for people who are veterans, unless they have been medically released from the Armed Forces. Since staffing seems to be a little slower, it would affect everyone to a certain extent.
Senator Runciman: I am curious about the process. It indicates here on the top of the document that this is co-developed by bargaining agents and public service employers. Is this a bargaining process; is that how this is conducted?
Ms. Meredith: I think we are speaking about the NJC directive on workforce adjustment, so I will ask Mr. Hyppolite to talk to the activities of the NJC.
Marc-Arthur Hyppolite, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: We have four agreements on workforce adjustment. There is the joint agreement, which is a negotiated agreement. You have the UCCO-SACC-CSN. There is the PIPSC agreement. Then there are the ones that are negotiated —
Senator Runciman: What we are talking about here today —
Mr. Hyppolite: This one is jointly negotiated, yes. If you do not have an agreement, you automatically fall under the directive of this one. However, separate agencies have their own agreement.
Senator Runciman: Does this directive — which spells out what we have been talking about today — go back to the membership of these various bodies for endorsement or how does that process work? Is it simply a bargaining team that rubber-stamps this? What is the process?
Mr. Hyppolite: It was negotiated through a very intense negotiation in the late 1990s, and the members are aware of this. In fact, they have access to the provision provided by the workforce adjustment. It laid down the principles, the rules and the benefits that the members are entitled to.
Senator Runciman: Have the benefits, if you want to describe them that way, been in place in the 1990s?
Mr. Hyppolite: The late 1990s. I believe it was 1999.
Senator Runciman: I guess it goes too far back to talk about comparators in the private sector.
Mr. Hyppolite: Yes.
Senator Runciman: I was looking today at the Senate, for example, and senators' staff severance after one year is two weeks versus I guess 22 weeks under this directive for someone who has been employed for one year. It seems to be pretty generous. That is the word I would use, anyway.
Let us talk about some of the elements of this. Out of curiosity, if someone has no job offer and they have this 120- day period that is incorporated in this to consider their options, do they still work during that 120-day period, and if they choose the surplus option, are they still paid, even if the job is gone?
Mr. Hyppolite: First, they will receive an effected letter that would describe how the position is being affected because of downsizing or the reason, such as lack of work. Simply being affected does not mean they will be "surplussed."
When they receive a letter that says they are "surplussed," they become an opt-in employee. They then have to make a decision after either 90 days or 120 days, within the three options that I described in the directives. During that time, they are expected to report to work. If the function disappears while they are surplus, meaningful work is provided to them through a special assignment, deployment or something like that.
They go on the priority list for 12 months. If they have a guaranteed job offer and they refuse, they can be laid off. If they do not have a guaranteed job offer, they stay for 12 months. After the 12 months, they get laid off and they stay for another 12 months.
Senator Runciman: What about the salary top-up?
Mr. Hyppolite: What do you mean by salary top-up?
Senator Runciman: It says "pay differential of 6 per cent between . . . ."
Mr. Hyppolite: That is for alternations, which the Public Service Commission can speak competently about. It is up to 6 per cent to the extent that you are in a facilitated —
Senator Runciman: It never exceeds 6 per cent; it is never greater than 6 per cent, is it?
Mr. Hyppolite: Six per cent is the maximum, yes.
Senator Runciman: How does it work going forward? If an employee were eligible for a step increase in their old job, does that still kick-in in a situation like that?
Ms. Robinson: That is a compensation question, but I can say for the purposes of alternation that the directive, as I understand it, allows persons to exchange posts with someone where the salary differential is not more than 6 per cent. Whether they would get another pay increase would depend on where they are in terms of their pay scale.
Senator Runciman: It is not automatic?
Ms. Robinson: No, it is not automatic.
Senator Runciman: If someone moves to a new job, is there a probationary period attached to that?
Mr. Hyppolite: If it is a promotion —
Ms. Meredith: We have probation for new employees to the public service but not for transfers of positions.
Senator Runciman: It is something that should be considered perhaps going forward, I would suggest.
In terms of people who have been made surplus or laid-off people who are given priority for short-term work opportunities, do you see any way that such might be open to abuse? I am thinking of someone who is laid off, receives a lump sum payment but continues to work, that sort of thing. Do we monitor that kind of potential abuse? We have heard about those kinds of situations.
Ms. Meredith: We have provisions in the workforce adjustment agreement that would prohibit that from happening. These things will be monitored quite carefully. We are managing the adjustment one employee at a time, so I think the risk is rather low.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a simple little question. When is an employee required to retire? In other words, let us suppose a person does not want to alternate his or her position or retire early. At what point do we say to this person, "good bye, take your pay and go home"?
Ms. Meredith: We do not require people to retire.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So we may have employees who are 70 or 75 years of age. That is not a problem?
Ms. Meredith: No.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: They can stay in their position as long as they want?
Ms. Meredith: Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In the next three years, on average, how many people will retire voluntarily? How many people on average? Are we talking about 3,000, 5,000, 2,000, 500? Give me a number that can give us an idea of the number of people who automatically retire every year.
Ms. Meredith: It is difficult to say because we cannot see into the future. Figures were published to that effect last year.
Mr. MacLeod: We are talking about approximately 8,000 people.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Who retired?
Ms. Meredith: Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What percentage of employees paid from public funds come under public service governance? In other words, when we pay our taxes — normally yesterday — we pay for a number of services, but you are not responsible for all the employees of those services. What percentage of those employees come under your jurisdiction compared with those who work for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or for the various Crown corporations — Canada has a few hundred? How many people in the general public service envelope come under the public service?
Ms. Robinson: I can clarify. According to our mandate, there are approximately 220,000 people who are covered under the Public Service Act.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you know how many of the other employees there are? The Treasury Board must have that information.
Ms. Meredith: There are 66,000 in the independent agencies. So that is another group.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Have you established a mechanism to ensure that, using the list of available individuals, there can be cooperation between the Crown corporations and the public service to manage just lay-offs and relocations? Could people who receive a thank-you letter from the public service receive priority treatment with Crown corporations?
Ms. Robinson: I will ask Ms. Laurendeau to explain a little more in detail about the possibilities available for these people with respect to joining the various organizations.
Ms. Laurendeau: The priority system covers the core public administration. Informally, we stay up to date on the availabilities in other organizations. However, we cannot guarantee a priority outside the core public administration. Non-Treasury Board employers or Crown corporations tell us what their needs are. And we also facilitate this type of placement. Obviously, we cannot manage it as rigorously as the priority system, where we can clearly tell a department that a person is qualified for a position and that we expect the person to be hired.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Not only is it informal, but it also depends on the willingness of each corporation to dig into the envelope for all available individuals. Is that correct?
Ms. Laurendeau: That is correct.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Let us talk about the percentage of contract employees. Currently, there are full-time employees working in the public service, but there are also contract employees. What percentage of employees are on contract? How are they affected by this lay-off of 19,000 to 12,000 people? We have always hired contract employees. I would like to know who authorizes them. We sign a contract to hire someone to do a certain job, people are sometimes there for several years without becoming government employees. Will these people be affected? What percentage does that represent in relation to the public service workforce?
Ms. Meredith: I do not have those figures. This involves employees and not contractors.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am not looking for figures. I would like to know who authorizes them. Did the directive come from you? This involves a payroll and employees. But they are not on equal footing with the public servants.
I would like you to provide us with more specific information about how many contract employees we have, roughly. Are we talking about 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 people? I have already seen figures that were still quite high. I would like to know what we are doing with contract employees when we are laying people off.
Ms. Meredith: General administrators are responsible for disclosing their expenditures on contracts and their staff.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The Treasury Board does not have anything to say about the directives relating to the remuneration of these people or the duration of contracts? We are still talking about entering the public service by the back door. Someone works on contract for a certain number of years. A position opens up, and he or she applies and, as if by chance, this person is perfectly suited to the position. So we send letters to the people to tell them that we are sending them home. I would like to know what happens to those people who carry out the functions in an integrated way in a department. You are telling me that this is a matter for administrators. But the lack of Treasury Board directives on these hirings, which are done in the thousands in the government, is inconceivable.
However, I would like to have a general idea in the next week of how many contract employees the federal government has.
Ms. Meredith: We have policies on procurement, but the general administrators are really the ones who take care of the contracts. There may be systems for the information on the contracts, but I do not have them here.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can we get that information? Is it your department that handles this matter?
Ms. Meredith: I can verify that, senator.
[English]
Senator Peterson: I will pose the question and can you probably submit it later in written form. We talked about this global number of 19,000 employees, 4.8 per cent of the workforce. However, downsizing by department, can you tell us what the percentage would be for each one, the impact on the department and broken down further by which departments are impacted within that scope?
Second, you indicate quite a significant number of positions will be lost in the Prairies. Can you give us the numbers for each province, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, again segmented by department, and which departments are affected in those numbers?
Ms. Meredith: Probably the best place to look at the impact of the cuts by department is Budget 2012, where you can see planned spending reductions by department in a table in the budget. Each department will be managing to the reductions that have been decided on, and each department is managing their workforce impacts according to those decisions made.
They are the best ones to turn to in terms of understanding the impact on their workforces. As I mentioned earlier, they are working continuously to try to reduce the numbers and the impact on their people, but the estimate at the time of budget was 19,200 positions in total with, at the end of the day, 12,000 people actually being affected.
In terms of the regional impact you asked for, the assessment that was made generally on workforce and program impacts was that it was not disproportional across the country. In other words, it was not disproportionate to the public service population across the country.
Senator Peterson: I am not questioning how you did it. I am just asking you for the numbers. In the Prairies you say 2,264 positions are going. I want to know how many for Alberta, how many for Saskatchewan and how many for Manitoba.
Ms. Meredith: I wonder what you are referring there, senator.
The Chair: I think Senator Callbeck asked for the same figure breakdown for the Atlantic regions. If you can give us the breakdown for the provinces, how this 19,200 breaks down per province, that would be what we are looking for.
Ms. Meredith: I think it would be difficult to give numbers in terms of detailed breakdown for the reasons I noted, which is that each department is working through their own numbers as they manage the impacts. It would be difficult for them to be definitive.
As I mentioned, this is being managed each employee at a time, and there are some limits to what can be done in terms of a breakdown.
The Chair: I think that is, "I cannot do it for you."
Senator Peterson: They are not their numbers then, they are someone else's numbers. It is kind of strange, they are cutting down and do not know where it is, who it is or when it will happen. I guess we just sit back and take it a cut at a time. It is a strange way to do it. Thank you.
The Chair: I had a couple of questions. It would be very helpful if you gave an employee a block diagram or a line diagram showing if you opt for this then you go into priority and this is what will happen, and then these are your options if they do not find you a job or they find you a job. Is this what you give each employee when they get notice? They get this Work Force Adjustment Directive and they have to do their own line diagram?
Ms. Meredith: No, Mr. Chair. We have, on our website, what we call Handbook for Implementation, and we have many questions that could be asked by employees or managers and all the answers are given there. They are frequently asked questions and the answers that are available to all managers and all employees. We do have block diagrams that take people through the process as well.
The Chair: Could you make those available to us?
Ms. Meredith: Certainly. I would commend our website as well to senators and ask them if we are missing any questions that they think might be asked. We would be happy to answer them. We are trying to get ready for the questions that people will be asking. We are trying to answer them in advance. We are trying to get as complete a picture there to support both managers and employees as we can, but it is an evolution. We update it continuously to ensure that we have information there for people.
We do have such a diagram; Mr. Hyppolite happens to have it with him. There are aids such as that to help people through what admittedly is a somewhat complicated process that is set out in the collective agreement.
The Chair: We can see that it is very complicated, but we will be asked by many of our constituents and we also want to make sure that the system that you have set up is one that is fair and reasonable. That is why we are having this session with you. Anything can you provide us to convince us of that and help us in our role would be appreciated.
We are over time. It is amazing how five minutes per person can move us along, but I propose going for six more minutes, if that is okay with you, and I have three senators on my list for second round. Sharpen your pencil and ask your very best question. That will be two minutes per senator, question and answer.
Senator Ringuette: In the two letters you referred to, surplus and notice, how many EXs and how many DMs have received them, Ms. Meredith?
Ms. Meredith: We estimate — and it is mentioned in the budget as well — that the executive cadre will be reduced by some 600 positions. That is the estimate of the impact. It is approximately 7.4 per cent of the executive cadre.
Senator Ringuette: We all know that the definition of "employee" and the definition of "staff" is not the same. You have referred to 19,200 employees. However, staffing, the consultants, the people who are being hired via staffing agencies, what has been the directive in regard to the reductions? Have they been given notice to terminate immediately?
There is a collective agreement here in regard to the public service. Before you lay off any public servant who is permanent or indeterminate, consultants and staffing hired through staffing agencies must be laid off on the priority list — never mind hired on a priority list but must be laid off on a priority list.
Ms. Meredith: We are sticking very closely to the collective agreement, and that is very much a mechanism we are using for adjustment. Mr. Hyppolite meets regularly with the committee that includes bargaining agents as well as departments in working through issues related to collective agreements — and all departments are also working with bargaining agents at the local level — to ensure that those are respected.
Senator Ringuette: Since you have bypassed the answer to my question, i.e. the staffing that does not go through the Public Service Commission, the staff who are consultants, the staffing done through staffing agencies, these poor employees are being paid ridiculous wages and the benefits are going to those staffing agencies. What are you going to do? What are you going to do with all of these people? In the last five years, that portion of staffing through government has increased exponentially. What are you going to do?
What are Treasury Board guidelines? First of all, they are not adhered to. I am referring to an audit done by the Public Service Commission two years ago. First, your Treasury Board guidelines with regard to hiring outside the public service are not adhered to by any department. What directive have you given to all the different government departments with regard to staffing?
The Chair: Have you given any directive?
Ms. Meredith: We are working with departments to respect the collective agreements, knowing that our employees want continuity of employment. We are meeting regularly with departments to ensure they are using the means they have available to reduce the impact on their employees.
Does that mean that departments are prohibited from engaging temporary help on contract? No, there is no prohibition by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat on that. Deputy heads can still hire on contract, which they may need to do to meet temporary or special needs. There is no prohibition to that.
Senator Marshall: What kind of reporting is done? You spoke earlier about preparing for the layoffs and that you follow a certain process, but what sort of reporting is done either at the end of the three years, or periodically, to the point where you get to the end of the three years? Is some sort of analysis done as to the impact of the downsizing in terms of how it affects women or permanent employees versus contract employees? What sort of analysis is done as you go along, and also at the end of the three years?
Ms. Meredith: I will ask Mr. MacLeod to speak about the data we collect regularly, because we do have the means to do that. We know that we can rely on, for example, the Employment Equity Act in terms of the representation of our workforce to require departments to have plans, to set representation objectives, and to continue to do so through the period of adjustment. Those mechanisms are in place, and we do reporting to Parliament as well in terms of achievement of their objectives in that regard.
We continue to collect data on the size of the public service, the constituent parts of the public service, how many term employees, casuals, students and indeterminate employees we have. We track those continuously, as well as, of course, hiring and attrition from the public service.
Senator Marshall: Is that reported publicly to Parliament? What specific information is collected and reported?
Ross MacLeod, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance Planning and Policy Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: We have not yet reported any of that information to Parliament because it is a look forward into what is actually happening. We follow departmental data in three sources. The first is the incumbent system or the regional pay system so that we can see how many employees, of what type, are being paid everywhere by departments. It is a good data source because it follows who is being paid, and that tends to self-correct over time if there are errors.
Second is a monthly report that we request from departments of all the impacts of the downsizing they are going through. We have looked at issues like official languages, for example, in that.
The third source is the departmental staffing plans, which we will correct. There will be some staffing in the future to meet specific needs that departments and organizations have, and we will be collecting those. That will be part of our verification process that we will use to follow along what has happened.
Senator Marshall: Some of the questions here today were geared towards the regional breakdown of layoffs. Would the reporting show that? Would it show female versus male? Would it show contract versus determinate versus indeterminate employees?
Mr. MacLeod: It will do a number of those. Contractors are not employees of the government, so we do not follow them in that way. That is another data source we obtain from Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Senator Marshall: Would temporary employees and casuals show up?
Mr. MacLeod: They would be included in the PWGSC data as well.
Senator Callbeck: I have a question on the estimates of Treasury Board. In the first line, you show that program expenditures are reduced by $11 million. That is comparing the estimates of 2012-13 to 2011-12. There were supplementaries last year. If you look at those, the figure for 2011-12 should be 295, not 235. If you just look at this, you think there is a cut of 5 per cent, but that cut is more like nearly 25 per cent.
I would hope that you will be able to get back to the committee in terms of outlining exactly what that cut is and where that money is going. There is a list here of some things for the $11 million, a footnote, but I cannot even get that to add up to $11 million. However, it is not $11 million; it is $70 million. Would you get back to the committee outlining exactly where that $70 million went?
The Chair: Are you able to help us with that now or would you like to take that as an undertaking?
Ms. Meredith: I will follow up in terms of Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat budget information.
The Chair: Thank you. If you could take a look at that, it would be helpful to us.
You have quite a major matter to manage, your two departments, with the 19,200 files that you will be working on. Can you give us some comparison to 20 years ago, in the mid-1990s, when we had an economic downturn and there were major layoffs? What were the numbers at that time? Do you have any figures in your head here?
Ms. Meredith: About 50,000 in the 1990s.
The Chair: You have some experience with handling this kind of matter. The Workforce Adjustment Directive was produced in or about that time, as I understand, mid-1990s, on how to manage.
Ms. Meredith: That is correct. As you can see, it is 31 pages, and I think it is that detailed because it was based on the experience of the 1990s cuts. You can see how step by step and detailed it is in instructing departments as to what they are to do, and I would suggest that it was based in large part on the experience of what they thought might work well.
The Chair: You mentioned that you get a year of severance if you have 16 years. Will I find all that information in this Workforce Adjustment Directive?
Ms. Meredith: Yes, you will, and its annexes. That is set out in the table at the back.
The Chair: I had not gotten through it in detail, so I was a little surprised when you mentioned that. However, I will look for that.
Ms. Meredith: It is in the annex, yes.
The Chair: Any documents that you have undertaken to produce for us, please provide those to our clerk and she will ensure that they get circulated to all the members of the committee for consideration.
On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would like to thank Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Public Service Commission very much for being here and helping us. We wish you well on your undertaking. We will probably have an opportunity to talk to you again over the next period of time in terms of how you are coming along with this.
(The committee continued in camera.)