Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 6 - Evidence - February 12, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 12, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. This evening we will continue our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
[English]
This evening we are pleased to welcome the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada, Ms. Anne-Marie Robinson. The president is accompanied by Gerry Thom, who is Acting Senior Vice President, Policy — Mr. Thom, welcome back — and Jacqueline Bogden, who is the Vice President, Audit and Data Services. This is, I think, your first visit here in this capacity with the Public Service Commission of Canada. We welcome you.
We typically would have the Public Service Commission once a year after your report is out, and if you have more than one report we will have you back for the other special report. We are a little slow in getting you here this time because we had a number of other things, but we are glad you made yourselves available to talk about what the Public Service Commission does, how you fit into the overall structure and any items you wish to highlight in your report that came out this fall.
Honourable senators, we have set aside one hour for this session. If we run over a little bit, we will have to ask permission from Ms. Robinson to do so. I understand there are Olympic sports on television that she'd like to get to see.
Ms. Robinson, you have the floor.
Anne-Marie Robinson, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Maybe I'll start by saying that the mandate of the Public Service Commission is to promote and safeguard merit-based appointments and, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to protect the non-partisan nature of the public service.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity today to meet to discuss our Main Estimates and our report on plans and priorities for 2013-14.
In our Main Estimates, the PSC is authorized to spend $89.9 million and, in addition, it has the authority to recover up $14 million of the costs of our staffing and assessment services and products related to federal organizations.
As a result of the Spending Review 2012, our budget is being reduced by $8.9 million to be implemented over three years. Last year our reductions were $2.2 million, with another $2.2 million this year and $4.5 million next year.
Now I would like to turn to our strategic priorities. They remain to provide ongoing, independent assurance to Parliament in relation to the performance of the staffing system. I would like to explain that since 2005 we operate largely under a delegated staffing model, so the appointment authority rests with the commission. The commission delegates that authority to departments and agencies, and then our operations largely consist of oversight activities, investigations, audit monitoring, reporting and studies.
We also have as a priority the need to continue to enhance the priority administration program and to work with stakeholders to foster increased awareness of non-partisanship as a core value of the public service.
[Translation]
The PSC's annual report was tabled on December 6. Based on all our oversight and feedback mechanisms, which includes monitoring, audits and investigations, the commission concluded that the management of staffing in departments and agencies continued to improve in 2012-13.
The 12 audits the PSC conducted this year found that most of the key elements of effective staffing management were in place.
Furthermore, deputy heads and managers respected their delegated authority. However, some areas still require further attention. For example, some organizations need to continue to improve their internal monitoring of appointment processes, which allows them to detect and correct issues in a timely way.
This brings me to our investigations. This year, 44 cases were founded. We saw more cases involving fraud, for instance, the use of false educational or professional credentials. Many of these cases were detected as a result of improved monitoring by departments and agencies as well as by the PSC.
However, I would like to note that the number of founded investigations and problematic transactions is actually very low in the context of the more than 100,000 hiring and staffing activities conducted on average each year.
[English]
With respect to hiring activities, this certainly was an unusual year in many ways as departments and agencies focused their efforts on redeploying employees and placing persons affected by workforce adjustment, thereby altering normal staffing patterns.
Overall hiring to the public service declined by 28.3 per cent. This includes indeterminate, specified term, and casual, as well as the hiring of students. With fewer hires and more departures, the overall population that is covered by the Public Service Employment Act declined by 5.4 per cent.
Public service hiring declined throughout the country, but more particularly in the National Capital Region. While student hiring was down, over 9,500 students were still hired for part-time and summer employment. They represented 31 per cent of all hiring to the public service, a percentage that has consistently increased over the last four years.
We also saw enhanced access to public service jobs. The national area of selection continues to allow more Canadians to apply for jobs no matter where they live. As well, Canadians without any previous work experience in the public service accounted for 41.7 per cent of new permanent hires — the largest component for the first time in over a decade.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to turn to public service renewal. Fewer graduates entered the public service in 2012-13. There are also fewer employees aged 35 years of age and younger in the public service. They represented 18.4 per cent of permanent employees in March 2013, down from 21.4 per cent in March 2010. In this context, a focus on renewal and the recruitment of new employees will gain greater importance as the public service moves forward.
Future recruitment must also take into account our increasingly diverse population. According to the most recent population data published by the Treasury Board Secretariat, overall we are making progress with regard to the representation of employment equity groups in the public service. However, we still have work to do.
This year, the PSC conducted further research to better understand the challenges that the employment equity groups experience and to use the findings to better target areas for specific action.
Now I would like to turn to the priority administration program. Since April 2012, working in close collaboration with departments and agencies, the PSC has placed more than 2,000 priority persons. The majority were surplus employees.
At the same time, the PSC has seen a drop in the placement of persons in other priority categories, including a significant decline in the placement of Canadian Armed Forces veterans who have been medically released. At the request of Veterans Affairs, the PSC provided technical options to address this issue for their consideration.
The government has recently introduced Bill C-11, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act with respect to priority hiring for medically released veterans. Should Parliament approve the proposed amendments, the PSC is ready to implement them.
[Translation]
On the innovation front, the PSC continues to leverage our technology and expertise. We have expanded the use of e-testing, unsupervised Internet testing and computer-generated testing. These tools are a valuable link in enhancing access to public service jobs and allowing organizations to effectively manage high volumes of applicants.
I would now like to turn to the issue of non-partisanship. Our staffing survey found that employees' awareness continued to increase. Seventy-three per cent of respondents were aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to political activities, up from 69 per cent found in last year's survey. We will continue to collaborate with all stakeholders to find ways of sustaining this momentum.
[English]
It has been eight years since the implementation of the Public Service Employment Act, and we have a unique opportunity to take fuller advantage of our experience and to improve our processes. In this context, we are working with departments and agencies to help them build a stronger culture of prevention and compliance, while we can continue to deliver on our fundamental responsibility to provide independent oversight and assurance to Parliament.
Finally, Mr. Chair, you may have noticed that the PSC itself was among the 12 organizations that were audited in 2012-13. The commission put robust measures in place to mitigate risks concerning possible conflicts of interest. The findings and the three recommendations in the audit are being addressed through the implementation of a detailed action plan.
Now, Mr. Chair, I would be very pleased to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Ms. Robinson, thank you very much. When you indicate you were audited, that's by the Auditor General?
Ms. Robinson: No, Mr. Chairman. The PSC itself had an audit by the Public Service Commission, because, under the act, the PSC is a department that has delegated staffing authority; and so we also had an audit by the commission. If you wish, at some point we can talk about the measures and the controls that were put in place to ensure and to manage both the issue around the conflict of interest, as well as the results of the audit.
The Chair: That's interesting. That will be an interesting discussion.
Before going to the list that I have developed of senators who have indicated an interest in entering into dialogue with you, I wonder if you could explain the priority administration in a bit more detail so senators will understand.
You talked about displaced employees and that you tried to find new positions for them. There are certain statutory requirements; you also have regulatory requirements; and you have also talked about Bill C-11 for injured, retired military personnel who are not veterans. Could you explain how that is handled? For you handle that, or is that handled by the various departments and you just oversee to make sure it is being done?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. That is a program that is centrally managed by the commission and overseen by the commission.
The priority system works in that there are two different levels of priority. There is the statutory priority, which consists of three groups of people: an organization's own surplus employees, employees who are on a leave of absence for more than a year whose positions have been filled behind them, and persons who have been laid off. Those statutory priorities are in the legislation and so they take precedence over what we refer to as another group of regulatory priorities and those are priorities created by the commission's regulations.
The reason why that order is important is because, according to the statute, the commission must appoint the statutory priorities before we appoint the regulatory ones. So, when I made reference to the medically released veterans, the medically released veterans are a regulatory priority. In the last year or year and a half, with the influx of surplus workers, those persons were placed prior to the medically released veterans because of the order of priorities that exist within the legislation.
The Chair: If Bill C-11 is passed, they will become statutory priority?
Ms. Robinson: That is correct. If Bill C-11 is passed, the group of medically released priorities who were released — I believe the expression was for service-related reasons — those persons would be at the top of the list and be made statutory priorities.
This is a system where there is a good degree of control exercised by the commission. Before a department or agency can staff a vacant position and hold a competition, they must first come to the commission and seek permission. What we essentially do is first require them to look in the priority system to see if someone is available before we would give them clearance to hold a competition and staff that position.
The Chair: Thank you. That's helpful. There may be other questions from honourable senators.
At page 2-295 in the Main Estimates, one can see your expenditures broken down by votes. You indicated almost $90 million plus $14 million that you can charge out in services and be reimbursed for. Senators will know that the Senate budget is roughly $90 million as well. We will have to find a way to charge out some of our services to bring in more money for our department. That's a good trick.
How many employees?
Ms. Robinson: We currently have approximately 750 employees on staff. The number in our Main Estimates is higher. That's because we are, like many departments, moving towards a lower budget next year, so we've had to do our own round of declaring persons surplus to prepare for our budget level next year, and we have some vacant positions, as well.
The Chair: Some departments are managing the vacancies to meet the financial reductions, we understand.
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
The Chair: A total figure for the number of public servants under the various departments that you audit?
Ms. Robinson: There are I think 200,250 persons now who are under the jurisdiction of the commission. It's in the range of 84 or 85 departments.
The Chair: Thank you. I'll begin with Senator Eaton, who is a senator from Toronto.
Senator Eaton: You run a huge department, obviously. It is a great responsibility. When I was growing up, the public service was a great Canadian brand. If you belonged to the public service in Canada, you enjoyed a very high reputation. Does the public service still enjoy that reputation? This is not a sarcastic question. I just want to know how you see your brand.
Ms. Robinson: Senator, thank you for the question. I would say that I would look to the applicants that we get for jobs. When we post, as one of the main recruiters for the public service, we still see still large numbers of applicants really interested in working for the federal public service. Myself, I go out from time to time to universities and talk to students, and I see that they are very excited and interested in the diverse range of careers we have for the public service.
Senator Eaton: Did I read or hear you say in your speech that a lower number of graduates were applying?
Ms. Robinson: What I said is that there are lower numbers applying, I think largely because there have been fewer jobs available during this time when the public service has been downsizing. Having said that, when we look forward at the demographics, we know that we will have some 10,000 or so public servants continue to retire every year, so we actually anticipate that recruitment will continue to go up even if the public service remains the size it is now, because of just the demographics and people retiring and leaving the public service.
Senator Eaton: I guess there was a bit of talk a while back that there was a sort of gap. You were looking for people that you could train or bring on at the deputy minister level, the higher levels of the public service. Is that still true, or are there people waiting to take those jobs?
Ms. Robinson: Human resource planning is more in the domain of the department of the Treasury Board. Having said that, we are seeing from the perspective of the commission that most of the appointments to the senior public service come from within the public service, because there are large pools of people. We do see efforts increasingly from time to time in shortage areas, for example, where the public service does reach out to also try to diversify its workforce and seek expertise from outside of the public service.
I would say when we look generally at the numbers of applicants for jobs, we still have healthy numbers. In fact, in the last two years, with the shrinking of the public service, we have seen some significant decrease in internal mobility. There are people in the public service who have perhaps been in jobs a little bit longer than they had historically, and I think we are well positioned for some movement and for some promotion within the ranks of the public service.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Earlier you mentioned that you had 750 employees. You look after employees up to what level in the public service? You are not responsible for deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers. Are you responsible for directors? Up to what level do you recruit and look after defining tasks and conducting cooperative analyses, among other things?
Ms. Robinson: Pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act, we appoint people up to the position of assistant deputy minister, EX-5.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say, about employment equity on page 3, that our population is increasingly diverse? Do you have specific objectives for persons with disabilities and Aboriginal people? Do you have a management policy that addresses some biases in our private system?
Ms. Robinson: In general, that is the proportion of people available on the job market. It is our objective for equity groups. I would also like to point out that we are using 2006 data, because we are expecting new data from Statistics Canada soon. That said, it is the commission's responsibility to ensure that there are no obstacles to the appointment process and that everyone has access to public service competitions.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: There are some minority groups that are at a disadvantage in the system. Earlier we spoke about veterans, but there are also Aboriginal people. Some groups may be less informed. In the public service, you do not only recruit people with doctorates, but you also people who do manual labour, whether at public works or elsewhere. Do you do any positive discrimination or anything else to ensure that members of minority groups that have the most challenges become involved in the public service?
Ms. Robinson: The Public Service Employment Act has some tools. For example, we can limit the areas of selection for certain groups if the department has noted a disparity.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I want to get back to your ratio. If, for example, your objective in 2006 was 48 per cent women and 52 per cent men on the job market, is your objective still the same?
Ms. Robinson: Yes, it is 52.3 per cent.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: On page 4, how do you deal with people in the public service? We have an election coming up. Candidates have had bad experiences, for example, when they were declaring their candidacy, they found the process long and complicated, and they were treated differently than other citizens. Is there a manual to explain the process? As for their duties, do they receive any pressure? Is there a complaints and appeals process regarding how candidates are treated?
Ms. Robinson: Mr. Thom will explain our programs.
Gerry Thom, Acting Senior Vice President, Policy, Public Service Commission of Canada: There are two sides. People can come to the commission to ask for permission to run as a candidate. Any federal government employee must ask for permission to run as a candidate at all levels of government: municipal, provincial and federal. There is also the other side. People may want to have some kind of involvement in political activity but may not necessarily want to run as a candidate.
Over the years we have developed a guide. We have a guide on our website, which provides information, with questions and answers. We have a test, a self-assessment, which gives the employee an idea of whether they are able to be involved in certain political activities. There's a quiz. We have a network of representatives in all the departments that are very familiar with the policy and who are able to provide advice. We also have a 1-800 number. There are a number of resources.
Every year we do a staffing survey, and last year we noted that 73 per cent of people who responded to the survey said that they were aware of their rights and responsibilities. That number is increasing every year. It started at around 57 per cent, and now it is 73 per cent.
We have a team that provides advice, so there is always someone available. We will provide help if anyone who truly wants to become a candidate needs help filling out the forms. Our service standard is to provide a response within 30 days, so that we do not impede their candidacy campaign.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would like to hear why people are refused, since every year you have sent people home, so there is more work to be done for those who remain. I talk to public servants, and many of them tell me that they have never worked so hard in their life, at the expense of their health and their family life. Some employees had planned on taking time off for their children's winter break and then had to cancel their vacation and ask for a refund.
My question is the following. If these people are forced to stay at work because they have so much to do, and everyone is in the same boat, how will you be able to authorize people to run if everyone is indispensable and we need them to work? You cannot keep cutting staff and think that the remaining people will be able to take on the extra work of those who are leaving. That is why I want to know what your primary criteria will be to allow someone to run as a candidate. The principle is the same, whether we are talking about the municipal, provincial or federal level.
Mr. Thom: Absolutely. I cannot speak to the work at each department, since it depends on the department, their organization and how they manage their resources. As the president mentioned, the Public Service Commission has done a good job managing our budget cuts. There were not necessarily cuts in all areas, for example, in dealing with people involved in political activities. The team there is the same one that was there before any cuts were made at the commission. In theory, I think we have the resources we need to provide services to employees, so that they can get an answer within a reasonable amount of time about whether they can run as a candidate or whether there are conditions. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Bellemare: I have two questions. The first has to do with the Public Service Commission's budget spending. In the 2013-14 Main Estimates, the budget was $89 million and some change — so we will say $90 million — which was lower than in the 2012-13 budget. However, in the supplementary estimates, this was increased to $95 million, which is more than in recent years. Can you tell us where this extra $5 million went? What positions or programs was it allocated to?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you very much for that question. I may ask for some assistance from my colleague who is responsible for our finances. However, I can say that, overall, as part of the plan to reduce the deficit, our budget will go down by about $9 million. Last year it was reduced by $2.2 million. This year it was reduced by $2.2 million. Next year it will be reduced by $4.5 million.
Senator Bellemare: What I was wondering was that I see these decreases, but at the same time I see that you needed extra money in the supplementary estimates, since the amount was increased to $95 million. I would like to know how that happens.
Ms. Robinson: Mr. Chair, I must apologize, but I do not have that information with me. I can send you a written response to explain these changes. Different departments transfer money to the commission to manage a program for our staffing systems, which may explain that, but I would like to take some time to provide a good answer.
Senator Bellemare: Perfect. My second question is related to the discussion we had with the Parliamentary Budget Officer about the impact of the cuts on productivity. We spoke a bit about productivity and he told us that it was hard for his office to assess the real impact of spending on services and productivity. I would like to ask you the same question. Since you see a number of sectors in the federal public service, could you give us some information on what kind of innovation is out there? If we cut staff but keep providing the same services, innovation is needed. Could you tell us what kind of innovation stood out to you the most and, in particular, the best practices?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I will start by saying that the commission sent the Parliamentary Budget Officer the information he asked for. As for innovation, under Ms. Barrados, our former president, the commission implemented some technological innovations. I think the most important thing for us is that we are increasingly using e-testing for people who are interested in working in the public service. We have used computer testing, so that someone can take a test from home if they are interested in participating in a public service competition. I think that is the most significant innovation for us, to effectively manage our programs and to ensure that Canadians have access to all the positions available in the public service.
Senator Bellemare: Do these tests affect the potential for fraud or make it easier for people to provide false information?
Ms. Robinson: That is an excellent question, and my team and I wondered the same thing. The initial tests taken via computer at home, for example, are used to test a large number of candidates. Then, a smaller group of candidates is chosen, and they will be tested again in person to confirm the results of the original test. This is an effective method, and that is what we use to ensure that our competitions are fair.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Bellemare.
[English]
The Chair: You understand what Senator Bellemare was getting to. It must have been in Supplementary Estimates (A), which I don't have in front of me. You have been talking about $89 million, whereas total estimates to date are up to $95 million, and we're looking for why there is the additional $6 million. Was it for something extraordinary? It doesn't seem logical to talk about a $2 million reduction and a $6 million increase, unless there is an explanation for it.
Ms. Robinson: Again, my apologies for not having that here today, but, senator, I would be very happy to send that very quickly.
The Chair: If you could send that to our clerk, Ms. Turner, she'll make sure we all get it in both official languages.
Senator Runciman: I was curious about the self-audit and why you made the decision to conduct a self-audit. Is there no one on the outside that could perform that kind of function? How did you feel comfortable about ensuring there wasn't any conflict, and who made that determination?
Ms. Robinson: As I'm sure you're aware, as deputy head of the organization, I am responsible for the management and operations of the commission. Like other deputy heads that fall under the act, the commission delegates appointment authority to me as the deputy head.
I also have a role, both as PSC president, which I just talked about, but also as a commissioner on the commission, which includes overseeing the audits done by the PSC, so that's where you have the conflict.
For the conduct of the audit, obviously these two roles could not be easily reconciled. That's why, at the very outset of the process, I removed myself from all discussions around the governance, the conduct of the audit, who would do the audit and how the audit would be done. My fellow commissioners — the commission is a body of three — include Susan Cartwright and Dan Tucker, who joined sometime after the audit started but before it was completed. They assumed those responsibilities as the commission.
Because of that, my colleague Ms. Bogden will talk about how her team worked with the commission in a model where I had recused myself to oversee the conduct of the audit.
Jacqueline Bogden, Vice President, Audit and Data Services, Public Service Commission of Canada: As Anne-Marie mentioned, she recused herself and the two commissioners took over to ensure independence in the conduct of the audit — the planning and all stages of the audit.
They also consulted with some outside members of the commission to get independent feedback from others — both auditors and non-auditors, and deputy ministers across the system — about any additional measures that the commission should probably take to ensure the independence and make sure that the governance was robust. One of the several measures that we took was to hire an independent firm to come and assess the quality of the audit and the measures that were put in place, including the independent governance, and give us a third-party report to assure us of that.
We established an independent committee of senior public servants involved in audit as well as human resources to give the commissioners direct advice at all the key stages of the conduct of the audit.
Of course, our audit team was completely insulated and isolated from any contact with the president. During the conduct or on any of the aspects of the audit, we dealt directly with the two commissioners.
Senator Runciman: I was on the committee a couple of years ago and asked your predecessor about the time to staff indeterminate staff positions. I think at the time, if memory serves, it was about six months and it doesn't seem to have changed a lot. You have a priority staffing pool to draw on. So what is the ongoing problem with respect to the timelines? Are you happy with that timeline of five and a half months, or is there a goal to reduce that? What's causing it and is there an effort to reduce that?
Ms. Robinson: There are a few things there. We're always trying to improve the time to staff, because I think we have a constant obligation to ensure that the public service is responsive and meets the needs of Canadians. That is about getting people in the job as quickly as we can.
We also want to make sure, as well, that the process is robust and based on merit, so it's about trying to find that balance.
We have done a review of some of the systemic issues, for example, that we found in our audits, and it is giving us more insight into how we can administratively simplify the staffing process. We're taking what we're learning from our audits and trying to make the process operate more efficiently.
Having said that, it's very difficult to look at the 2012-13 data because that was certainly an unusual year in the public service. As you mentioned yourself, it was a year where a lot of people were redeployed into existing positions. Those redeployments don't necessarily show up in the time-to-staff data. In fact, it was mentioned earlier by the president of the committee that there was vacancy management being done across the public service. In some cases people started competitions and then waited to fill those to see if there were persons, for example, in the priority systems or other affected workers who could have been redeployed into those systems. That certainly makes the data for 2012-13 unique.
Having said that, this has been a long-term problem and so, like my predecessor, we continue to look for ways to bring that number down.
Senator Runciman: How rigid is merit-based hiring? If someone meets the posted qualifications and the academic credentials, but has the personality of Attila the Hun, what kind of flexibility is permitted to recognize those concerns or issues?
Ms. Robinson: Under the act, the person, in essence, has to meet the qualifications for the job as part of the qualifications, as well as some of the harder credentials, like having a certain degree or certain types of job experience. We also look at things often referred to as behavioural competencies or personal suitability. Somebody could specify that we have to test for collaboration.
Senator Runciman: Those are subjective though, aren't they?
Ms. Robinson: The PSC has a state-of-the-art personnel psychology centre. We have tools available, developed by psychologists, which can be used by people in the public service. In our merit-based processes, we also put a lot of emphasis on ensuring procedural fairness and that the process is done in a consistent way.
You're right: there is some level of interpretation in the process, so we try to make sure there is a certain amount of rigour to ensure there is fair application, including training of managers. Managers who are delegated staffing authority have to go through a certain amount of training, and most of the time there are HR experts on the board. It's the combination of those things that make the appointment system work.
Senator Runciman: What happens if, in the view of the commission, someone violates that policy? You've reached a determination, and what's the process that follows that and what action can you take?
Ms. Robinson: The action we can take is up to and including dismissal. For example, we use our audit function to look at whether the systems and structures are working in departments. We also sample transactions. We also have an investigation function where sometimes things come to that function through an audit process. Sometimes people come to the commission and bring forward issues they want the commission to look at, so they come forward through a number of ways. We can conduct investigations, and in some cases we revoke appointments to people.
Senator Runciman: Is there an appeal process?
Ms. Robinson: Our investigation decisions are subject to judicial review before the Federal Court.
The Chair: Ms. Robinson, you mentioned two commissioners. Perhaps, to clarify the record, you could explain the role of the two commissioners in addition to yourself.
Ms. Robinson: The commission functions as a body, so I run the day-to-day operations of the commission, but when it comes to most of the substantive decisions, like the results of our audit, the results of our investigations, our major policy directions, those decisions are taken by a commission which is a body of three persons. All of the commissioners are equal. We work on the basis of developing a consensus for making decisions and that is the model, I believe. It's in the legislation, but that also makes us more representative and I think it helps us to balance our decisions.
The Chair: Are the commissioners full-time employees?
Ms. Robinson: The commissioners are part-time. We have a meeting usually one day a month, and for certain other transactions we might meet periodically.
The Chair: Are they order-in-council appointments?
Ms. Robinson: That's correct.
Senator Callbeck: I wanted to come back to those investigations. You said a minute ago there were 44, and you mentioned in your presentation that some were cases involving fraud: the use of false educational or professional credentials. I just assumed those people would be gone if that happened but, from what you said, maybe they're not.
Ms. Robinson: Normally there is a whole bunch of different things that can happen following an investigation. The fraud findings are of the most serious ones. Normally if somebody has presented false credentials or a false diploma, the normal response from the commission would be to revoke that appointment.
I'm trying to find the data here, but there are a number of appointments that are revoked every year by the commission.
Senator Callbeck: In your presentation you talked about student hiring. You said it was down. How much has it been down over the year compared to the previous year?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for that question. There are several different programs that relate to student hiring. The one that is probably the most well-known to students is what's referred to as FSWEP, the Federal Student Work Experience Program. Last year we hired 8,305 persons and in 2012-13 we hired 5,835, so that was down quite a bit.
The second largest is the co-op education program. That was 4,520 in 2011-12 and was reduced to 3,408. I would be very pleased to send this data to the committee. Overall, it's a reduction of several thousand students from the year before, but having said that, this was in the context of a shrinking public service. What was optimistic in the data was that student hiring represented 31 per cent, which was an increasing share of overall hiring.
We are taking careful note of this, because, as I said before, the public service does need to renew itself. While we understandably had a reduction during a downsizing time, the commission will be looking to work with departments to ensure we are able to recruit the students we need to meet our future needs.
Senator Callbeck: Do you see another reduction coming this year?
Ms. Robinson: The reductions are made by the government, so that's not something the commission would have information about. According to our discussions with departments for the student campaign — Gerry, my colleague, worked with departments in his previous job — we launched a new campaign in September, and we saw certainly greater interest in the campaign that's going on right now than in the previous year, so it's hard to predict. It depends on departmental budgets, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the hiring will be going up in the future. When we look at the general demographics, it would signal that we will continue to need to hire a good number of students.
Senator Callbeck: I would hope so. Students are having a tough time out there.
On page 295, there is a line in there that talks about the decrease — and you mentioned it — of $4.5 million, resulting from savings. Maybe you haven't got that information here this evening. If you have, fine. If you haven't, could you send us a detailed outline as to what is represented by that $4.5 million?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I could give you an outline of the total cuts for the deficit reduction action plan. We implement them over a period of three years.
In order to reach our overall reduction as a result of the deficit reduction action plan, we closed the PSC's physical library and moved to an electronic system for accessing data and information. I mentioned before the fact that we're leveraging technology, particularly for Internet-based testing.
Senator Callbeck: Do you have the figures to go with each one?
Ms. Robinson: I do. We have the figures not necessarily by that description, but I have them by branch so I could send it to the committee in a number of ways.
Another thing we have done is to close two regional offices. I could give you specific figures for those as well. I could send you a breakdown of the specific cuts by program and then by what was changed in each of those programs.
Senator Callbeck: Okay. That would be fine.
Senator Seth: Thank you for your description. I see here the Public Service Commission's 2012-2013 Annual Report suggests that persons with a disability, whether a man or a woman, had significantly low chances of promotion compared to other groups. I wonder why and how it can be fixed.
Ms. Robinson: Thank you very much for that question. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this because you would see from a study that we have done — I'm not sure if it's been posted yet, but will soon be — that it was the first time the commission did a study looking at the chances of promotion by the different employment equity groups. The part of the study that was the most worrisome for the commission was when we looked at persons with disabilities and the chances of promotion for the members of that group were significantly lower than other comparable groups. I would say that study was for one year, so the very first thing we're going to do is look to repeat the study, because we need to figure out if this was something that was anomalous for one year or if this is a pattern. That's the first thing we are going to do.
We are also going to disaggregate that information to better understand the career progression of persons in that group, which will give us more insight into their career progression. Beyond that, we need to validate the study to see whether or not it's an ongoing trend or a one-time thing.
Having said that, we are significantly concerned about this, so we have also launched a program of outreach where Mr. Thom and his staff are going out, for example, to talk to the universities and work with persons in the community to find out what their experiences are like working with our recruitment and appointment system so we can work with people on the ground to understand what any of barriers might be.
Then, of course, within the public service, we have shared the results of this study for all of the employment equity groups with the respective champions and chairs of the employment equity committees and government, and we have a dialogue going on inside government to try bring some interpretation to why we are seeing this so we can target the right response.
Senator Seth: Do you have any idea of the percentage of disabled people that are working?
Ms. Robinson: In terms of the representation?
Senator Seth: Yes.
Ms. Robinson: Yes, according to the latest Treasury Board study, persons with disabilities in the public service, according to the 2011-12, data represent 5.7 per cent of the population. The workforce availability, again using the 2006 data, was 4 per cent, so we see overall they're representative in a higher level. That's the overall population. However, our study looked at their chances of being promoted. It is one thing to have people in the public service, but you want to ensure people have the same opportunity for promotion within the public service. That is the element that we're currently looking at as part of our study.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: You mentioned that there were approximately 200,250 employees under the commission's jurisdiction. That is what I understood. You said that they come from about 74 or 75 departments. Is that correct?
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Chaput: What role does the commission play and what are its responsibilities with respect to hiring these employees?
Ms. Robinson: Staffing authority is delegated to the departments. We have developed policies, rules and guidelines to ensure that the authorities delegated to the departments are in line with the commission's policy. The department is also able to develop its policies based on the principles found in the commission's policy. Since staffing is managed by the department, we also oversee the process through our auditing programs and we can occasionally conduct investigations.
Senator Chaput: Is there is a language policy — created by you and given to the departments, or created with the departments — to ensure that services can be offered in both official languages?
Ms. Robinson: The Public Service Commission is responsible for official language policies related to staffing. However, the Treasury Board policy is what determines whether a position is bilingual.
Senator Chaput: I looked at the questions I asked you when you visited last October. This means that you do not determine whether a position should be staffed as bilingual imperative or non-imperative? It would be the Treasury Board?
Ms. Robinson: The department determines that using the Treasury Board's policy.
Senator Chaput: Thank you. Are you able to tell us how many positions are bilingual imperative, or what percentage of public service jobs are bilingual imperative?
Ms. Robinson: Based on the data published by the Treasury Board, in 2011-12, 42.5 per cent of positions were bilingual.
Senator Chaput: Imperative?
Ms. Robinson: I am talking about bilingual, compared to unilingual. I think Mr. Thom has the breakdown between bilingual imperative and bilingual non-imperative.
Senator Chaput: You mentioned it last year and I did not understand.
Mr. Thom: There are positions classified as "bilingual" or "unilingual." The terms "non-imperative" and "imperative" are used when a position is staffed. If a position is staffed as "bilingual," people must decide if they want to staff it as "imperative" — in which candidates must meet the requirements — or to staff it as "non-imperative" — in which candidates have a period of two years to meet the requirements. That is what I will talk about.
In 2011-12, 3.6 per cent of positions were staffed as non-imperative. The rest of the positions were staffed as imperative. What I find interesting and what I would like to point out is that even among the 3.6 per cent — which is a relatively low number — 82 per cent of the people who applied for these positions already spoke the language and did not need language training. I think that is an important point.
Senator Chaput: Do you know how many positions that is in total?
Mr. Thom: For staffing?
Senator Chaput: Yes, approximately.
Ms. Robinson: Based on the information I have here, in 2012-13, 439 positions were staffed as non-imperative.
Senator Chaput: And the total of imperative?
Ms. Robinson: I could send you that information.
Senator Chaput: Okay. Do we know the nature of these bilingual positions, whether they are imperative or non-imperative? Are they full-time, permanent positions, determinate or occasional? If you do not have that information, would you be able to send it to us?
Mr. Thom: It depends. The positions are staffed by the departments. They are delegated. We get the percentage at the end of the year. They would be both permanent and term positions. I do not think we could get that information for the various departments.
Senator Chaput: Could you send me the information?
Mr. Thom: Yes, we will check.
Senator Chaput: The reason I am asking is that last year, we were hearing more and more that departments were offering contracts for professional services. Instead of replacing people they were offering contracts, with a start and end. I was wondering if that trend has continued. That is why I wanted to see the numbers. If departments continue with contracting, it could create a problem.
Ms. Robinson: If it involves occasional workers or people who work on contract or work for agencies, the commission will see a decrease in the percentage of people hired for occasional positions.
The commission does not have the data for people who work for agencies or who work on contract because the program falls under the mandate of the Treasury Board and public works. However, we can try to find that information.
The old commission had a study and a screenshot to compare. It got information from the department, but this information is not in our database since it is not part of the appointment system. The commission normally uses the staffing and appointment data.
Senator Chaput: The Public Service Commission of Canada is involved; there is the Treasury Board; you just mentioned public works. Approximately how many other departments are involved in hiring and staffing?
Mr. Thom: The Public Service Commission of Canada is responsible for staffing, which we delegate to the deputy minister. We meet with the deputy ministers individually, they sign a contract with us, and we ensure that they fully understand their responsibilities with respect to the Public Service Employment Act and the policies we have developed.
Senator Chaput: That is the deputy minister for each department?
Mr. Thom: Yes. It starts with the commission, we have the delegation, but we have the right to delegate it pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act.
When we are talking about contracts, we do not have any contact with the people who are hired — I do not like that word, but they are hired through different staffing firms — because they are not employees. It is the departments. They sign a contract as though they were purchasing a product, except they are purchasing services. They purchase an employee's services through various agencies or consultants, for example. We have nothing to do with it.
Senator Chaput: Would it be possible for a department's figures to not only show a decrease in employees to save money, but also show an increase in contracts, and we would not be able to tell whether these were employees who were hired? Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr. Thom: Yes.
Senator Chaput: That can happen?
Mr. Thom: We would have to check with each department. It depends on their salary budget compared to their non-salary budget.
Senator Chaput: You delegate to the ministers and deputy ministers, then you have your say in the policies. Ms. Robinson, I think you said that you also had an oversight responsibility. What is that responsibility? How do you oversee things?
Ms. Robinson: The commission does four things to fulfill its oversight responsibility. We have an audit program and we can investigate certain transactions based on the provisions set out in the act.
We have also conducted studies to examine trends across the system. We have used reports. Each department must send us information every year, so that we can observe trends. They must also send us other studies, as I have mentioned, regarding persons with disabilities and their opportunities for promotion, which is another example of the kind of oversight the commission has to ensure that the system is working properly.
Senator Chaput: Do you have anything to add?
Mr. Thom: The first type of oversight we do, as our president mentioned, is reports. That is really the first contact with the department and it is very important. We ask them to tell us what they have done with respect to certain criteria. For example, with respect to priorities and the cuts in 2012 and 2013-14, we spoke to the departments and asked them to explain how they had managed their priorities within the department. We do that for different criteria and essentially give them a report card that indicates their strengths and weaknesses or what they need to improve. The goal of this is to help them improve and do a better job with staffing in the future. Audits or investigations may be requested when there are serious problems.
[English]
The Chair: You have quite a long list of things you're going to undertake to produce for us.
So that honourable senators have a feeling for the priorities that we were talking about earlier, individuals that fit into a special priority hiring, could you just make a list of those, starting with the statutory ones and then down to the regulatory ones? Have you made an assessment as to how many are waiting in these various priority lists? If you have that, it would be helpful for us to have that list, and then we can study it.
Ms. Robinson: I have the lists, and I can give you a snapshot as at a certain date. Of course, we're daily placing people in the system and getting new people in. If I could say, Mr. Chairman, there are 2,310 people as of February 5 in the priority system.
The Chair: In all categories?
Ms. Robinson: In all categories. The normal level before the downsizing exercise was between 1500 and 1800, which is what we call the normal level of people in the priority system. It went up to almost 3,000. Then, with all of the in and the out, it's now steadily coming down and we're at, as I said, 2,310.
The Chair: Senator Runciman was interested earlier in the question of how long. They may go down because these people have gone off and found a job somewhere else. Senator Runciman, you had a follow-up?
Senator Runciman: I have a supplementary in terms of the statutory change and priority for the medically injured veterans. I haven't looked at the legislation. Has it been introduced?
Ms. Robinson: Bill C-11 has been introduced.
Senator Runciman: Does that give them top priority, and how does that relate to merit? You have certain set qualifications for a position, and you have a wounded vet. How do you rationalize that?
Ms. Robinson: All of the appointments are based on merit. Just to answer the first part of your question, the medically released priority is according to that piece of legislation. There will be two categories. The persons who are released for service-related reasons would be at the top of the priority list, so those persons would be the first to be considered for any job. Then there is a process where we match the qualifications of the veteran to see if they're qualified for the position. So you still do an assessment to make sure the person appointed is meeting the qualifications, and that is an appointment based on merit.
We know from our experience, because we've had a program in place, up to the influx of surplus persons in the priority system, up to the point of March or April 2012, when the medically released veterans were in the category of regulatory priorities, we had a placement rate in the range of 72 per cent. We saw that the medically released veterans had the skills the public service needs and there are many jobs in the public service across the country. The federal government has a large number of jobs with a large footprint where departments were very pleased to appoint medically released veterans because they had the skills they needed. We were able to match. If you put those medically released veterans higher up in the priority system, we would anticipate even more referrals and more matching and a good rate of appointment.
The Chair: To illustrate how you function generally, not the priority system that you centrally operate, as you indicated, are there any instances where you have delegated to a department within the civil service an authority and then taken it back or red flagged it and said, "You are just not doing this the right way"?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. That is another feature of our oversight regime. When we go in and audit an organization, if we find that there are serious problems in how the organization is functioning, in the past, the commissioner has — and could in the future, as we have the ability through the legislation — either put a condition on that delegation, and a condition could be something like asking the department instead of sending an annual report to us about their performance to send it quarterly, for example, or in some cases we have put people in a department to provide more capacity and expertise and to help them rebuild parts of their appointment system that may not be functioning well. We have a whole range of interventions that we can put into place, which I believe gives the system a great deal of ability.
Our job is to ensure that we, in a timely manner, uncover any problems as they're going on, and then to intervene using a range of options, including helping the departments get their staffing back on its feet if there are problems. After all, departments need to function well so they can hire public servants to serve Canadians.
The Chair: Has your fee for service remained roughly around $14 million a year for the last several years?
Ms. Robinson: In fact, it's gone down as a result of the downsizing activity in the public service. The rate of regular hiring, of course, has declined, as we said in our report in the context of a shrinking public service. Because of that, we have two types of services that are on cost recovery. One was the staffing services for departments. This was an optional service. If departments had capacity issues in their own organization, they could come to the commission and we could provide staffing services on a cost recovery basis. Sometimes it is used by smaller departments who find that, rather than build up their own service, they can rely on a service provider to do their staffing. That service has dropped substantially.
The part that continues to grow, and I am pleased to see it is growing, is our services by our personnel psychology centre using science-based assessments. When you are in the business of wanting to do merit-based appointments, it is important that the tools that are used by managers are valid tools and are really well designed to test the competencies and qualifications that we want in the public service. Again, that's something that's picking up. Some of our language testing services are picking up and, of course, we offer specialized services in accommodation as well.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Who looks after training for employees who need to work on their official languages and who have two years to do so? Is it the department or you?
Ms. Robinson: The department. I am not sure, but I think it is done in accordance with the Treasury Board policy. The departments and deputy ministers are responsible for training their employees. The commission is responsible for ensuring that public servants abide by the two-year period to achieve the required level of language.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, there are now agreements with colleges and universities to offer training or development for the department. That is possible.
Ms. Robinson: Yes, it is possible, but I'm not sure.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Robinson, Mr. Thom, and Ms. Bogden, one of our responsibilities as the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is the machinery of government. You are where it starts, and you keep an eye on it all for us. We should be meeting and talking to you on a regular basis, which we try to do. We thank you very much for being with us here this evening. It was very helpful.
Colleagues, the meeting is now concluded.
(The committee adjourned.)