Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 19 - Evidence - October 28, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 28, 2014
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, 2015.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, we are here this morning to continue our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.
[English]
From the Public Service Commission of Canada, we are pleased to welcome Anne-Marie Robinson, President; Christine Donoghue, Senior Vice President Policy; Gerry Thom, Vice President, Staffing and Assessment Services; and Philip Morton, Director General of Finance and Administration.
We thank you all for being here this morning. Ms. Robinson, I understand you have a brief opening statement.
Anne-Marie Robinson, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable members, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Public Service Commission of Canada's estimates for 2014-15.
The mandate of the Public Service Commission of Canada is to promote and safeguard merit-based staffing in collaboration with other stakeholders to protect the non-partisan nature of the public service.
This fiscal year the PSC's Main Estimates are $83.7 million. We are now in the final phase of implementing reductions that were part of spending review 2012. We are well positioned, have adjusted our activities and are ready to implement our plans and priorities to effectively fulfill our mandate.
As members may know, our 2013-14 annual report was tabled in Parliament last week.
[Translation]
The PSC oversees the staffing system through regular monitoring, audits and investigations. Based on these oversight and feedback mechanisms, we concluded that, overall, staffing management continued to improve.
The seven audits we conducted found that most of the key elements of effective staffing management were in place; and deputy heads and managers respected their delegated authority. However, there are some recurring issues. There is a need for improved monitoring of appointment processes, more effective controls surrounding the sub-delegation of staffing authority, and improvements in how appointment decisions are substantiated. We will be providing targeted support and guidance in these areas.
[English]
Last year, 20 investigations into appointment processes by the commission were founded. Nine of them involved fraud, for instances where individuals provided false educational or professional credentials or cheated during examinations. However, I would like to point out that these numbers are very low in the context of the more than 72,000 staffing activities that took place within the federal public service last year.
Next, I would like to note some trends in hiring and staffing activities.
[Translation]
Mr. Deputy Chair, the public service population is changing. In 2013-14, the population in the organizations coming under the Public Service Employment Act decreased by 2.6 per cent. Following three consecutive years of decline, this population, in March 2014, was 10 per cent lower than in March 2011. Notwithstanding this, in 2013-14, we saw an increase in hiring and staffing activities for the first time in four years.
[English]
Overall hiring to the public service increased by 16.2 per cent over the previous year. For example, student hiring was up by 8.6 per cent, with 10,386 student hires in 2013-14. However, permanent hiring of new graduates was down. We also noted that employees under the age of 35 represented 17 per cent of permanent employees in 2013-14, down from 21.4 per cent in March 2010. The PSC is preoccupied by these trends, which have implications for the renewal and future of the composition of the public service.
I would now like to turn to non-partisanship. A non-partisan public service is one in which appointments are based on merit and free from political influence, and where employees perform their duties and are seen to perform their duties in a politically impartial manner.
Mr. Chair, the PSC has taken a keen interest in Bill C-520, which is entitled an act to support non-partisan agents of Parliament. It was introduced in the House of Commons on June 3, 2013. In order to contribute constructively to Parliament's study of the bill, the PSC submitted a detailed statement outlining its concerns to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. This statement is available on our website.
Our merit-based appointment regime relies on a number of requirements set out in the Public Service Employment Act. One of those is that only the qualifications required to perform the duties of a position are to be assessed when a position is being filled. This means the assessment of applicants is based only on the competencies required to do the job, and only information required for the assessment and appointment process is collected from applicants.
Bill C-520 proposes a substantial change to this regime by requiring all applicants for positions in the office of agents of Parliament, and not just successful candidates, to provide information on their past political affiliation as soon as possible in the selection process. Even though it may not be the intention of this bill, asking for information on past political affiliation could be at odds with the Public Service Employment Act and could lead to a perception that this information may be used in the selection process.
The fact that we do not ask for information on political affiliation or any other information for that matter, which is not related to an appointment, the commission believes is essential in ensuring the confidence on the part of the public and applicants in the impartiality and fairness of a merit-based appointment system.
As a resource for Parliament and the Government of Canada on matters related to safeguarding the merit principle and the non-partisan nature of the public service, the PSC will continue to engage as the proposed legislation proceeds through the parliamentary process.
[Translation]
I would now like to turn to innovation. We made further advances in using technologies such as on-line testing, which now represents 54 per cent of all the tests administered by the PSC, including second-language evaluations. Unsupervised on-line testing allows applicants to take a test at a location of their choosing and have greater access to public service jobs no matter where they live. This greater accessibility can help to remove testing barriers for persons with disabilities, who, for example, can now take advantage of their own adaptive technology at home to do our exams.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we recognize that our responsibilities form but one of many elements of the overall framework of people management in the public service. In order that the whole remains modern, effective and responsive, we continue to explore ways where we can better perform our roles with respect to merit and non-partisanship, and we look forward to working with departments and agencies in the coming year to promote innovation and improvement.
We will also continue to foster strong relationships and collaborate with parliamentarians, bargaining agents and other stakeholders so that Canada can continue to benefit from a professional and non-partisan public service.
[Translation]
I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Eaton: In your remarks, you underlined that the hiring of new graduates is down and this is a trend that preoccupies you. Yet the highest unemployment seems to be — or one is always hearing and perhaps it is apocryphal — young graduates out of universities and there are no jobs for them. Do you see something wrong with your profile or how you are going about attracting those people? What do you think is the reason that they're not flocking to do the tests and come to work in Ottawa?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you very much for the question. I would like to clarify at the beginning that the hiring for student programs, what we see as the temporary and summer programs —
Senator Eaton: I'm sorry. I'm not talking about students. However, permanent hiring of new graduates is down.
Ms. Robinson: Yes. Just to point out, that is sort of the beginning of the process, and often those people are bridged into the public service. I was happy to see that that increased by 8.7 per cent. The issue with hiring permanently into the public service has not been because we haven't had people apply. In fact, we still see a large number of applicants to our post-secondary recruitment campaign.
Rather, I would say that what we saw in the last two years was because of the reduction exercise that government has gone through, permanent hiring to the public service was down over the last two years as the public service went (a) through a downsizing exercise; and (b) we in the public service, through the priority system, were largely staffing internal positions by redeploying affected workers.
What we are now seeing in the data — and we started to see it turn around last year — is that the demand by departments for new hires is starting to go up. So we do anticipate that we will turn the corner on this and start to hire new graduates into permanent jobs in the coming year.
What we wanted to highlight in our report was, this has had now a demographic impact on the public service. My colleague Gerry Thom has launched a campaign with universities this year. When we look forward, now that we're largely through the downsizing exercise, even if the public service stayed the size it is now, which is smaller than it has been historically, we anticipate up to 8,000 retirements per year in the next three years so we're going to have to replace those people with people from outside the public service.
So our message to students and graduates is that we need you in the public service and we will be out there and will be recruiting.
Senator Eaton: We hear quite often that the fastest growing demographic in our population is the young indigenous First Nations population. Do you have any special way of promoting their hiring in the public service? Is there a quota system?
Ms. Robinson: In terms of hiring under the Employment Equity Act, the Public Service Commission is specifically responsible for ensuring that the appointment processes are based on merit and are barrier-free. We do work with all groups to ensure that that is the case.
In terms of Aboriginal recruitment, I do have the data here. We did see last year quite a bit of success — I just want to find the data for you — yes, last year, for Aboriginal people. The appointment rate in 2013-14 was at 5 per cent, and, in fact, their workforce availability, according to the 2006 data — I recognize that's older data — is 3 per cent.
That is an area where we continue to put emphasis, but we are seeing positive results in terms of appointments. Where I do know there is work going on and I know the Treasury Board is looking at this is, while we see the overall numbers are good in terms of representation, we're still not seeing — and I think that's true for all of the employment equity groups — the representation we would like at the most senior levels.
The Deputy Chair: Supplementary to Senator Eaton's question, succession planning. With 8,000 people leaving the public service per year, probably all boomers, what type of succession plan do you have in place? Those are fairly large numbers. What concrete steps are you taking to create a succession plan?
Ms. Robinson: The general responsibility for workforce planning is with the Treasury Board Secretariat. Having said that, because we are the recruitment arm of government, we work very closely with them. Largely, it takes place in individual departments. I will say that one thing we have seen improve significantly over the past five years is both the capacity and the activity of planning and succession planning in human resources in general in departments. Individual departments do have plans in place.
As I mentioned, over the last two years, we have, as a result of the reduction exercise, had a lot of surplus in affected employees. They have been largely redeployed in the system now. So now departments are putting their minds to opening up recruitment again and based on their plans, we work with them, and Gerry Thom's group, who is with me today, goes out to universities and we do, for example, target recruitment in areas where we know there are going to be shortages.
We are improving in that, and we are getting more specific. We are seeing still in all categories — except some of the more extreme shortage areas — generally speaking a large number of students and Canadians who are interested. We have large numbers of applicants for all of our processes.
The Deputy Chair: Recognizing that Treasury Board is responsible in terms of succession planning, the question is really aimed at the idea that, as a recruiter, it's important for you folks to make sure you understand what changes are taking place in terms of job profiles so that you are actually bringing in the people who fit the actual profile of the position.
Mr. Thom, were you going to comment on that?
Gerry Thom, Vice President, Staffing and Assessment Services, Public Service Commission of Canada: Yes. As mentioned by our president, the planning is really the responsibility of every deputy head. We have a big campaign; it is the post-secondary recruitment campaign. It is cross-Canada. For instance, this year, it's in the fall. We had 26,000 applications, 15,000 unique applicants, and what is interesting there is that, as mentioned, before we had the campaign, we talked to all the departments, through different counsel, through their heads of HR, and also the different departments have their own contacts for student recruitment and so on. We get that data. This is one thing we do.
For instance, when we go out with our campaign, people can apply to general jobs. We have four career streams — administration, let's say informatics, and so on. This year we had 17 specific career choices from departments. These are departments, such as Foreign Affairs, that say, ''We will need some FS's. We want to recruit.'' They have a specific poster for them for this campaign. That's compared to last year's 11 career choices. It's going up. This is the work that we do as far as outreach with the departments.
The second thing that is very important is that we do more outreach than we used to to universities across the country. We do career fairs. We do those in conjunction with departments that are actually doing staffing with their jobs. If we go, for instance, to York University, we will research the university as far as what their specialization is and all that. We try to make the mix between the universities and the departments and try to say, ''Okay, we're going there. What are your needs? What can we look at specifically for you?'' It seems to be working.
When we go at the beginning of the year, before going out, we have an idea of how many jobs they plan to staff.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have several questions for you. I gather that you take care of staffing and recruitment; if positions are abolished, do you also take care of what happens after those positions are abolished?
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Bellemare: Do you have an estimate of the average cost of abolishing a position? I imagine there is a cost and that payments are made as a function of years of service. In relation to hiring costs, what does that represent?
Ms. Robinson: In general, the management of the work force adjustment program is the responsibility of the Treasury Board and the policy is subject to a contract negotiated with the unions. The role of the commission is to manage the system of priorities; when a position is declared surplus, the employee in that position has the right to transfer to another position; the commission manages that part of the system.
As to the other questions about the costs associated with laying off employees, the Treasury Board will be able to answer because it is responsible for the general management of the programs.
Senator Bellemare: You say that the Treasury Board is responsible for the costs when a position is abolished, but does the department itself perhaps have some responsibility as well? Does it include those costs as part of its budget?
Ms. Robinson: If an amount of money has to be paid to a laid-off person who chooses the option to leave the public service, that amount is taken out of each department's budget, but on the condition that we manage the system of priorities. In the two subsequent years, we reassign resources internally to make sure that we have all the people we need in place and to help those who have been declared surplus.
Senator Bellemare: There is no tenure as such in the federal public service as there is in some provinces, for example. When a position is declared surplus, the person may be transferred. But if that cannot happen because there are too many surplus positions, the person is let go with a severance payment.
Ms. Robinson: Yes, but normally, at the beginning of the process, that person has the opportunity to accept a severance payment if that is their choice. If the person prefers to stay in the public service, they can go into our priority system, normally for a period of one year. The commission will then work with that person to find them an available position.
Senator Bellemare: Does it happen that new positions are filled by people who have been declared surplus?
Ms. Robinson: Absolutely. Under the legislation, people who are in the priority system, or affected employees, must be considered first.
Senator Bellemare: The labour market is changing a lot. Specifically, we can see that full-time employment is decreasing. When you compile statistics on the public service, do you see the same profile? Are there more and more temporary or part-time jobs in departments compared with full-time jobs? What would be the proportion of full-time jobs to other kinds of employment?
Ms. Robinson: I do not know if I have that breakdown, but, in general, we have observed an increase in staffing levels of 16.2 per cent in 2013-14. For permanent positions, that is an increase of 31 per cent. For temporary positions, determinate positions, it is 20.8 per cent, and for casual employees, it is 17.7 per cent. We have seen that the greatest increase is in permanent positions.
It would be better for me to send the committee a more detailed analysis of the last five years. That would give you a more complete picture.
Senator Bellemare: What I would like to see is the percentage difference in the increase between permanent and determinate positions.
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Bellemare: You say that Bill C-520 proposes a substantial change to the regime, by requiring all applicants for positions in the offices of the agents of Parliament, and not just successful candidates, to provide information on their past political affiliation.
When you refer to the past political affiliation in the bill, is that just about having a membership card or is it more, like having worked for a political party?
I was surprised when I read that. Does that mean that, just by having been a member of a political party, you cannot apply, or the opposite? Is there a distinction to be made there?
Ms. Robinson: I am going to ask Ms. Donoghue to answer that question.
Christine Donoghue, Senior Vice President, Policy, Public Service Commission of Canada: Basically, Bill C-520 lists all political activities. The issue is not quite clear in terms of whether that refers to just having a card or being formerly employed with a political party. However, for the applicant, it certainly means having been politically active in the last 10 years.
All applicants must provide this information even before being considered for a job. Typically, in a merit-based hiring process, as is the case in public service, this information should not be used, because it does not pertain to merit. Canadians might end up wondering whether people were actually hired or excluded because of their affiliation. That is the commission's concern.
We are saying that, if the bill were to be amended to say that a person was selected on the basis of merit, and that person would make the disclosure for the sake of transparency after being appointed. We think it would be less of a problem at that stage. In terms of doing it before, we wonder why we should collect information that is not used in the selection process and whether it could undermine the perception of non-partisanship in the system.
Senator Bellemare: I have another question about Bill C-520 and the business of going back 10 years. Under a 2006 or 2007 piece of legislation on government transparency, someone who had worked in an office would not be eligible for a position. Was that a 10-year period, or not?
Ms. Donoghue: I do not want to mislead you, but I do not think it was a 10-year period; however, there are related conditions. In fact, the commission is concerned when someone who applies for a job had a political position in the past. We ensure that the conditions in place guarantee non-partisanship in the selection process, which is always based on merit.
However, it is not about a 10-year period. It is about political service. We could get back to you with the provisions of the act, but the situation is not quite the same.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for following up; please send all the information to our clerk.
Senator Chaput: I checked the notes I took during your appearance last February. I had shared my concern about the increasing number of contract employees.
If I understood correctly, you said that the planning was done separately. You had public employees on the one hand and contract employees on the other.
What is the current situation with the contract employees? What percentage do they represent and how much do they cost?
Ms. Robinson: Generally, the Treasury Board handles contracts. It is also the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, but there is also another type of contract that makes it possible to hire people under the Public Service Employment Act. Those are casual contracts. Last year, we noticed an increase of 17.7 per cent in the hire rate in that category. That was considered to be more or less an average increase in the system overall, and lower than the level observed in hires for permanent positions. The increase in permanent positions was 31 per cent.
Senator Chaput: The 17.7 per cent represents how many individuals, how many employees on contract? How much does that cost?
Ms. Robinson: In 2013-14, we hired 16,891 people.
Senator Chaput: How much money did you spend to hire those 16,891 people?
Ms. Robinson: That depends on the year. In general, people fall under various categories, so it is difficult to calculate the exact cost. We can do some research, but it is difficult to establish a number.
Senator Chaput: I understand. Mr. Deputy Chair, would you be able to request that the information be sent to us?
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Could you do a little analysis please, Ms. Robinson, and send it to our clerk?
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: By category as well, if possible, Ms. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson: Yes. We can give you a breakdown for casual workers. Are you also interested in the breakdown for term workers?
Senator Chaput: Yes.
Ms. Robinson: I can give you a breakdown with the four categories of employees.
Senator Chaput: You are responsible for recruitment and staffing when positions are eliminated. Earlier, a senator asked you a question about costs.
Do you review the language requirements for positions in general or do you do that when a position is eliminated and needs to be filled in some other way afterwards? In a word, are you responsible for reviewing the language requirements for positions?
Ms. Robinson: When a position is abolished, we usually identify it as a task being abolished. Then, if someone is transferred to a position as a priority, for example, managers need to follow the Treasury Board policies and determine whether a position must be designated bilingual or unilingual. They need to do so for every job in the public service. The Public Service Commission is also responsible for ensuring that the person meets the language requirements of the position.
Senator Chaput: So you are not responsible for examining and re-examining the language requirements for positions?
Ms. Robinson: No, it is up to the Treasury Board to determine the level of bilingualism required for every position; in practice, each department does that.
Senator Chaput: Yesterday, in the Senate Committee on Official Languages, we heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages. He told us about his concerns about the impact of budget cuts on the ability of federal institutions to meet their linguistic obligations under the law.
Is there a policy or a tool that enables those in charge to analyze the impact of job cuts on the ability to meet the linguistic obligations?
Mrs. Robinson: Generally speaking, that is the Treasury Board's responsibility. The board has three responsibilities when it comes to official languages. Our responsibility is to administer second-language evaluations, to ensure that persons participating in competitions can do so in the language of their choice and to ensure that, if someone is appointed in a non-imperative position, the person becomes bilingual within two years.
In terms of second-language evaluations, we noticed a significant increase in last year's success rate on most exams. So that is something positive.
Senator Rivard: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair. Could you tell me what an agent of Parliament is? Is it a position filled after a competition or interviews, or is it a senior management position?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you very much. I am not sure whether I can give you an exact definition, but I know that there are nine of them. They have certain responsibilities and they report directly to Parliament and work independently. The positions include the auditor general, the commissioner of official languages and the information and privacy commissioner. The recent competitions I have seen were advertised; the Privy Council Office is usually responsible for staffing those positions. Normally, they are also confirmed by Parliament.
Senator Rivard: That means you have no investigating authority when you find out that, for instance, following a public competition in a service — either in the Senate or in the House of Commons — the brother or brother-in-law of a director or the brother or sister of a friend obtained the position. You cannot investigate to see whether the impartiality process was truly followed in such a case.
Ms. Robinson: We can investigate only those appointments made under the Public Service Employment Act.
Senator Rivard: Agents of Parliament.
Ms. Robinson: Yes. Most people who work in the offices of agents of Parliament are appointed under our legislation, the PSEA.
Senator Rivard: As far as impartiality goes, how do you conduct your investigation? What challenges do you face when verifying whether the rules of impartiality were followed?
Ms. Robinson: We have three main mechanisms to help ensure that all appointments are based on merit. Departments have to report certain information to the commission every year. So we have a vast pool of data we analyze annually to determine whether the system is exhibiting any problematic trends.
We also have an audit program, and we carry out 7 to 10 audits a year. Every department has very detailed analyses for its staffing system.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we also have an investigation system, and we can investigate a transaction if need be.
We have occasionally identified some problems, but in general, those problems are minor given the annual staffing rate and the number of transactions in the system.
Senator Rivard: I must confess that I have not yet read your annual report. Does it cover the number of investigations you have carried out and their results?
Ms. Robinson: Yes, but I can give you that information now.
Senator Rivard: If you are saying that this is covered in the report, I will read it.
Ms. Robinson: You will find a lot of details in the report.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses. The stories that we hear publicly include narratives that say jobs aren't being filled and that attrition is taking care of job reductions, yet we see there was an increase of 16.2 in public service hiring in 2013-14. Can you help us understand exactly what's happening? Are positions being filled? Are they being left empty? Can you help us there, please?
Ms. Robinson: Yes. Generally, positions are being filled because we have strong capacity within the federal public sector to staff positions, and we have pools of applicants who are looking for positions in the federal public service. However, we are in a situation where, while the public service last year reduced in size by 2.3 per cent, the rate of staffing activity actually increased at the same time. That is because people are leaving.
Last year, we saw in the range of 5,500 to 6,000 people take retirement. When I asked the Treasury Board Secretariat for their estimates coming into this committee today, they said that in the next three years up to 8,000 people per year are eligible to take their retirement. It is still a relatively older workforce compared to other workforces in the country.
One of the messages the commission wants to get out to students and to young Canadians is that, although we've gone through a downsizing exercise and haven't done as much hiring in the past two years, we anticipate that going forward that we will need to attract and recruit Canadians into all kinds of occupations.
Senator Wells: Why would the public service be a less attractive option? Have you done any studies or do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Robinson: I haven't seen from where I sit that the public service is a less attractive option. We've had a situation in the past two years, perhaps, where there haven't been as many jobs available, but we're still seeing a high number of applicants interested in working in the federal public service. When I have the opportunity to talk to young people about working in the public service, it's amazing the diversity of jobs that are available in the public service. Anyone from Chris Hadfield, who worked for the Canada Space Agency to the crew that discovered the Franklin expedition in the north, there's a vast variety of administrative jobs, engineering jobs, work in the financial sector and work in security. There are a vast number of occupations. Once people enter the federal public service, they have the opportunity to move around within the system, so it can be a very rewarding and exciting career.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. I understand that there's a merit-based system. We all recognize the value of that. You've talked to us about having a barrier-free application process and unsupervised online testing that makes it easier for people to apply to the public service. I come from a business background. Is there anywhere in the process that assesses fit for a position? How is that done? As well as merit and having the right qualifications, that's an important aspect of anyone joining a workforce.
Ms. Robinson: It's the manager who decides at the beginning of the process what the qualifications are. Typically, that would include things like education, knowledge, certain capacities and skills, as well as interpersonal and some of what are often referred to as the softer skills. When the manager is assessing the employee and interviewing the employee, they're able to get to know the person during the process and to evaluate those skills. A merit-based process requires that the rules of the game are transparent and known up front and that everybody who participates in the process is considered in this same manner.
Often in a competition a manager will have two or three people, for example, that have met the test of merit. Then they're able to select the person based on the best fit for their organization, as long as those reasons are linked to the work that needs to be performed and what they are assessing is linked to the qualifications and the skills that were tested during the interview process.
We have also what we call in our appointment processes the asset qualifications. They'll often use those additional qualifications to ultimately choose the candidate that is the best fit, but you have to be qualified.
Senator Wells: What are the asset qualifications? I don't understand that.
Ms. Robinson: On a competition poster, we have essential qualifications that you must meet in order to be qualified. When you have a group of people who are deemed qualified, then there's some asset qualifications that you can consider to choose amongst those persons who are qualified. They might include things like a master's degree, an additional degree in one of the areas, or additional experience of a certain type. As long as they are objective and the criteria are applied equally to everyone, then it's considered to be a merit-based appointment.
Senator Wells: All right, thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Let's get back to Senator Chaput.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question is about the Political Activities Self-Assessment Tool. According to your annual report, the percentage of public servants who are aware of their rights and responsibilities related to political activities has increased — from 73 per cent in 2012 to 75 per cent in 2013. Can you tell us who was in charge of developing this self-assessment tool?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for your question. The Public Service Commission decided to develop this tool to help public servants make informed decisions on their political activities. This tool has recently been modified. In response to some concerns expressed by unions, we reassessed the tool in detail. We made changes to it after taking the time to consult public service employees and unions.
Senator Chaput: Could a similar tool be developed for public servants' responsibilities and obligations in relation to the Official Languages Act? The Commissioner of Official Languages appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages yesterday, and he was saying that poor practices and difficulties are often caused by ignorance or indifference. Public servants are not aware of their obligations, or that is not part of their reality. Could not a similar assessment tool be developed to help raise public servants' awareness of their responsibilities in terms of legal obligations?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I will certainly think about that. We recently launched a video on political activities for all departments. The video is very short, and those who have seen it said that it helped them understand their responsibilities quickly. Perhaps we could think about doing something similar for official languages.
Senator Chaput: Thank you very much, Ms. Robinson.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I have a couple of follow-up questions. In your overview you talked about Bill C-520 in terms of asking for political affiliations.
According to the 2014-15 Main Estimates, the Public Service Commission of Canada plans a decrease of $2.6 million, or 13.3 per cent, in the oversight of integrity and staffing and non-partisan programs; is that related to your position on requesting or not requesting political affiliation? What's the reason for reduced funding of the oversight of integrity and staffing and non-partisanship program?
Ms. Robinson: Could I clarify the year that you have is 2013-14?
The Deputy Chair: It says here 2014-15.
Ms. Robinson: Okay. Those reductions in part relate to the implementation of the spending review exercise and some reorganization we have done as a result of that. They are not related to Bill C-520 and in general I would say, as you can see, over the past five years our expenditures have gone down in many areas.
The Deputy Chair: Right.
Ms. Robinson: I think there are two principal reasons for that. First, in 2005 when the new legislation was put into place, there were a lot of new activities the commission had to develop. We had to do a lot of work in developing new methodologies, and putting in place and implementing new programs, including programs in the area of political activities. We're now in a more mature state, so our operating costs are generally decreasing in a number of areas. As well, because the public service is no longer in a period of growth, as it had been in the previous 10 years, naturally some of our activities related to staffing, for example, were not as busy as they had been in the past. The overall volume of our activities has gone down.
In addition to that, thanks to the work done and initiated both by my staff and my predecessor, Maria Barrados, the commission made big investments in technology. The Internet-based testing that I spoke about in my opening remarks has resulted in significant savings throughout the commission. We used to conduct large volumes of tests, renting hotel rooms or different types of facilities across the country, doing tests on pen and paper. Now people do those tests electronically using the Internet, and that has resulted in significant savings.
There are no specific reductions related to our work in political activities, except some collapsing of the management structures around it.
The Deputy Chair: So rebalancing, moving forward?
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: I have another little point. It says in the 2013-14 annual report that the Public Service Commission notes an increase in the percentage of public servants who are aware of their rights and responsibilities related to political activities. The percentage was 69 per cent in 2011, 73 in 2012 and 75 in 2013. Not to ask you a loaded question, but what do you think of the fact that one in four public service employees are not aware of their rights and responsibilities related to political activities? Is there an answer to that question or is it just trying to move up the percentage of people who are aware?
Ms. Robinson: We continue to move up the numbers, so we are happy to see that we're making progress there. This year we have launched a number of additional tools, including the video I just spoke about, which I think makes awareness much more accessible.
The other thing is that I know when we break down that 73 per cent, we see that public servants who tend to be in higher-level positions and managers are even more aware. That's important and I think as the members of this committee may know, public servants do have a right to engage in political activities, provided it doesn't impair them to do their job in an impartial manner, or as perceived to impair that. It really depends on the nature of their duties, their level of visibility and the level of their position. Those are the kinds of things you have to think through and so we do see much higher levels of awareness, certainly in the senior ranks of the public service.
This is important to us, though. It's critical in terms of ensuring the impartiality of the public service, so we will continue to work on this, show more progress and continue to do more outreach.
The Deputy Chair: Before we conclude, are there any questions for Mr. Morton? He's sitting there very lonely in the corner. Are there any technical questions, finance-related questions?
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: It is known around the world that the Canadian public service is made up of professionals with a very good reputation. I have two quick questions. When it comes to bilingual positions in the public service, do you play a relevant role, or do those positions always come under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board, departments or agencies? If you do not play that role, do you think that the staffing process and the quality of our public servants could be improved upon if you were given a role to play in the identification of bilingual positions?
Ms. Robinson: As I said, it is the Treasury Board's responsibility to determine what positions are bilingual or unilingual. The identification of bilingual positions is also handled by each department.
Generally, the commission is responsible for all appointment aspects. Over the course of the appointment process, it is our responsibility to ensure that the appointed individual's bilingualism is at the required level.
Senator Mockler: Do you think better service could be provided if you were in charge of issues relating to bilingualism in the public service?
Ms. Robinson: I am not sure of that. I saw from the work I did with the Treasury Board that the people working on these files were well qualified. The most important thing — and this applies to all those who have responsibilities related to official languages — is for us to work together to ensure that the overall system is working very well.
Senator Mockler: In light of that answer, do you think there is room for improvement?
Ms. Robinson: It is our job within the public service to try to continue to enhance all of our programs.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: As a recruiter, it would seem logical that you folks would have some authority as to the degree of bilingualism or language capabilities in that you would be able to be in contact with the Treasury Board or whoever is ultimately responsible. To me, it's a shared responsibility, and I think that's the line of questions that might have been asked. It may be an opportunity not to power grab but to create a better linkage, just as a thought.
Ms. Robinson: To reassure the committee, we do work very closely. There are two areas where we share responsibility with Treasury Board. One is in official languages and the other one is in employment equity. I would agree that the system only works well when we work closely together to ensure it is seamless and that the tools we put in place, for example the system of testing, work well with the standards established by the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think that, if any Canadians were to read this, they would know that we know nothing.
I have a more specific question. What is your communications budget? How do you communicate information? Are we talking about communications officers who work for the public service? What kind of a communications framework do you have?
Are positions advertised strictly on the Internet, or can the average person — Internet connections are not necessarily available in all regions of Canada — have access to postings?
So I want to know about how information is communicated, both to the public and to potential candidates.
Ms. Robinson: The budget dedicated to our communications functions within the commission is $3.7 million. Most Canadian applicants who want to obtain a position within the public service use the website, but we also have a telephone service for those with no Internet access.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can you explain to us how the telephone system works for someone who would be interested in working as a secretary or occupying a regular position? You are saying they can call a telephone number. How can they find that number?
Ms. Robinson: I will ask Mr. Thom to answer your question, as he is in charge of this program.
Mr. Thom: A number of competitions are advertised every year, and the main means of communication is the Internet. Of course, we encourage people with no Internet access to go to a Service Canada office or a library.
Information is clearly most accessible on the Internet, but we also have an Infotel number. Someone on the other end of the line provides candidates with information on various competitions. This number is not used very much. I must say that this was a good question.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you know how someone can find that number? What can someone without a computer do?
Mr. Thom: I understand your question about what someone without a computer can do. Some 10 years ago, many competitions were published in newspapers.
Senator Chaput: Yes, in newspapers.
Mr. Thom: That is no longer the case today, unless we are talking about very specific positions. For instance, if someone is looking to hire a scientist through a competition, and there are no qualified applicants, a notice is published in specialty newspapers.
However, the use of this method is declining, since it is very costly, and not everyone has access to those newspapers anyway.
To come back to the Infotel issue, people contact the Public Service Commission by calling the general information 1-800 number or a general Government of Canada number. People who contact the Public Service Commission by calling the general Government of Canada number are transferred to the right place.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Is this done by telephone even in remote regions where there is no signal? Is there no other way?
Mr. Thom: If I use the example of Canada's north, where the Internet signal is fairly good, the competitions we launch for departments with positions to staff in the north are often published in local newspapers. Local newspapers are still used in Canada's north and in remote regions, and we often publish the notices in English, French and Inuit.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think this is part of the answer. Is the $3.7- million communications budget used only for communications with the general public? Does the Public Service Commission define its objectives every year on how to report on its actions or policies?
Do you have full control over that communications budget — in other words, do departments, the government or policies interfere in that budget?
Ms. Robinson: Thank you for the question. I can say that the Public Service Commission — when it comes to its role to monitor the staffing system and the impartiality of the Public Service — must act in an entirely independent manner. I report directly to Parliament when it comes to my duties.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Do you advertise on television, in French or in English, in certain regions or is everything done through newspapers? How do you reach the Canadian public?
Ms. Robinson: To ensure that the public is aware of our activities, our main communication tool is our annual report, which is available and is published every year. We also receive a lot of requests from universities and media for information on staffing matters and the public service. Our policy is that we be open and share all our data, unless the information in question could affect someone's privacy.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How many people work at the Communications Directorate?
[English]
Ms. Robinson: I don't have an exact number, but I'll give you an estimate.
The Deputy Chair: Could you get back to us with a written reply, and send it to the clerk?
Ms. Robinson: It's in the 30s, but I'll have to check that. I don't have the numbers for each group.
The Deputy Chair: Our time has run out. I apologize. We have had some great questions. I'd like to thank our panel for coming out today.
Honourable senators, in our second hour this morning, we are pleased to welcome officials from the Standards Council of Canada who will speak to the Main Estimates of 2014-15.
We have Ernie Briard, Vice President, Corporate Services & Chief Financial Officer; Michel Girard, Vice President, Strategy; and Sandra E. Watson, Vice President, Communications and Corporate Planning and Corporate Secretary.
Thank you for being with us this morning. Mr. Briard, I understand you have an opening statement.
Ernie Briard, Vice President, Corporate Services & Chief Financial Officer, Standards Council of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and honourable senators. We're pleased to be here. I will begin by thanking all of you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you this morning to talk about the Standards Council of Canada. I will be using the acronym SCC as I go forward with my opening remarks, and we will be talking about the subject here, the Main Estimates, for the year 2014-15 fiscal year.
I will provide short synopsis of our organization and then follow with an overview of our Main Estimates for the year.
As I think you are aware, SCC is a Crown corporation responsible for leading Canada's standardization network. We are an organization of only 95 employees, and our strategic direction is guided by our 13-member governing council, i.e., our board of directors, and our day-to-day operations are led by our CEO, Mr. John Walter. Mr. Walter sends regrets that he cannot be here today.
SCC's mandate, which is included in the Standards Council of Canada Act, is to promote efficient and effective standardization in Canada. Our mission is to enhance Canada's competitiveness and well-being through standardization initiatives. Everything we do is aimed at improving Canadians' quality of life and providing value to Canada.
We are Canada's national accreditation body, and we coordinate Canada's standardization network. We represent Canada in international and regional forums, such as the International Organization for Standardization. ISO is the acronym there, and the International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC. I'm sure some of you have heard of them before. We also accredit standards development and conformity organizations; we approve all national standards of Canada; we develop standards-related strategies and long-term objectives; and we foster quality, performance and technological innovation in Canadian goods and services.
We work collaboratively with the government to support the priorities that will bring the greatest benefit to Canada. We work with industry stakeholders and consumers to ensure we are delivering programs and services that are in the best interests of Canadians, and we rely on the thousands of experts who participate through international committees to develop standards to strengthen our country's economy and protect our citizens.
By promoting and facilitating the development of standards and standardization activities, we play a fundamental role in ensuring the social and economic well-being of our society. By standards, we're talking about documents that are established by consensus and approved by a recognized body. Hundreds of thousands of standards are maintained around the world by national, regional and international organizations.
Governments around the world also use these standards to support public policy objectives.
In Canada, recent research revealed more than 7,000 references to standards in federal, provincial and territorial regulations, including, for example, specifications and requirements regarding the flammability of children's sleepwear, the safety of medical devices, the use and storage of explosives, and the certification of organic foods. It is our job to ensure that Canada's standardization network functions as it should.
SCC may be a relatively small organization, but the contribution it makes to the health of Canada's economy and well-being of its citizens is significant. We like to think that we punch above our weight both at home and abroad.
With respect to the financials and the fiscal year 2014-15 focus on the Main Estimates, I will provide an overview of our overall expenses and then show that against our funding sources, which include the Main Estimates, for example.
SCC's 2014-15 budget shows a total expense view of $23.2 million. We're a little more than halfway through the year, as you know, and we're on pretty good track towards that expense view. Roughly half of the expenses, 48 per cent to be exact, or $11.2 million, represent salaries and benefits, and these are the employee-related expenses for our roughly 95 employees.
A quarter of our expense view of $23.2 million, or $5.7 million, goes to professional fees, and these professional fees are paid out in a number of areas, including spending on contracts associated with standard development organizations that actually develop standards for Canadians, and also for some of our auditors and assessors as we do contract work associated with conformity assessment and accreditation services activity.
Fifteen per cent, or $3.5 million, of that $23 million in total goes to fund Canadian international participation, and that represents that we fund Canadians who will represent Canada at various international standardization committees.
Last, of course, is essentially the catch-all, so roughly 12 per cent or $2.8 million, and I have lumped everything else into that bucket to keep to a high level here today, and that includes Canada's membership in international organizations such as ISO and IEC, as I have mentioned before, and all other expenses that will pay the bills such as rent, heat and those types of things. That makes up our $23.2 million of expenses for 2014-15.
I will turn to how that is funded. We are funding the $23.2 million through our Main Estimates, Government of Canada appropriations, which we're here to talk about today, and we get $11.7 million from the government to fund the $23 million of our budget. It is a little more than half.
We also receive monies via external revenue sources for our accreditation services business, and the revenue associated with that is $7.7 million.
It is only in the 2014-15 year that we allocated a portion of our accumulated surplus to help balance our budget and fund the initiatives that we undertake for the government.
Last but not least, we do have some royalties associated with the sale of our standards, national standards of Canada, and also some revenue-generating advisory services type activity that makes up that $1.7 million.
Turning to the $11.7 million of Main Estimates that we get from the Government of Canada, within the $11.7 million this year, is a $2 million increase over the last year, and that increase is only for this year. The rationale for the increase is we had a carry-over from the previous year in that we did not spend $2 million associated with appropriations that were a result of supplier spending delays against some contractual commitments we had with them. As to the specific nature of the suppliers, we had engaged and contracted with standard development organizations to do some standards work for us, and they were delayed in their program implementation into this year. I will note that to develop a standard is generally a multi-year program regardless. This is carry-over money from one year to the next.
I will break down what is included in the $11.7 million of Main Estimates. We have four major areas we're spending that money on. First, we spend roughly $5.5 million related to standards and conformity assessment policy. This is where SCC advises governments and industry on standards and conformity assessment related aspects of trade and regulatory policy. Incorporating standardization practices to regulatory policy provides an added measure of protection for the health and safety of Canadians.
The monies that I talked about earlier with respect to the funding to the standards development organizations to develop standards for us, $3.3 million is included in that $5.5 million going to those activities.
The second major bucket in the $11.7 million of Main Estimates spending is for $4.5 million related to the standards program. What this program is all about is SCC approves standards submitted by standards development organizations as national standards of Canada, a designation that indicates the standard is the official Canadian standard on a particular subject.
Additionally, and as I mentioned earlier, SCC, through its member program, facilitates and coordinates Canadian participation in national, regional and international standards development, including SCC's participation in two of the world's largest voluntary standardization bodies which I have already mentioned, the ISO and IEC. Participation in these organizations provides the Canadian government, industry and consumers with very much a competitive advantage.
The third bucket that I'll talk to that makes up our standardization world is called the Conformity Assessment Program. This program is funded entirely by external revenue sources, as I mentioned earlier, and it's not a cost to the government at all. It is 100 per cent cost recovered.
We provide accreditation services across a number of areas, such as laboratories, product certification and management systems. An accreditation by SCC can increase an organization's competitiveness and ensure that safer and more efficient methods and products are used in the Canadian marketplace.
The last bucket to make up the $11.7 million of Main Estimates spending has to do with internal services activities. Roughly $1.7 million is allocated for that. These are the activities which support all SCC programs. They're activities such as communications, human resources, financial management, facilities, procurement and contracting, information technology and other essential administrative services to support the business.
That should provide a good breakdown of where the $11.7 million of Main Estimates is spent, and this concludes my brief overview. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions that honourable senators may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Did you play a role during the free trade negotiations with Europe, since standardization is an extremely important aspect? If so, what role did you play?
Michel Girard, Vice President, Strategy, Standards Council of Canada: Yes, the Standards Council of Canada was involved in the free trade negotiations with Europe, and the agreement contains provisions to facilitate Canada's participation in the standardization activities of our European counterpart, CEN-CENELEC. The agreement also contains provisions to ensure that the accreditation of organizations that test products in Europe and in Canada can be recognized.
Those two provisions were negotiated, and we will implement them once the agreement has been translated and work can begin.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Is your request for a budget increase related to this?
Mr. Girard: We have not submitted a request for a budget increase. Our budget was increased in 2013. Our participation in the negotiations was funded through those appropriations. We currently have no requests concerning the implementation. Any additional resources will be required only once we have determined, along with the European community, what sectors will be subject to those accreditation costs, and the amounts will not be large. That will occur over the course of several years.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Some Canadian companies that are already accredited here could be hurt by those artificial exportation barriers based on the so-called standards or administrative courts that are somewhat biased, as is often the case with the United States. In other words, everything is going well, a free trade agreement has been signed, but things change when you get to the border. Do you get involved in such cases? Do you help people defend the standards you have established? You have the expertise and you provide those companies with guidance.
Mr. Girard: Exactly. We see that, when it comes to trends in terms of standards in Canada and around the world, fewer and fewer national standards are being used, developed and adopted.
Canada used to have over 10,000 standards regarding various products and activities, and those were Canada's national standards — developed and managed by Canada.
Currently, the number of standards in the national catalogue is below 3,000. We have gone from 10,000 to 3,000 and, instead, the industry and the government are using regional Canada-U.S. standards or international ones, such as the ISO standards.
This is reflective of globalization and a market where, if something is produced in Canada, it needs to be usable and interoperable around the world. So, in Canada, international standards such as ISO and IEC are used more and more.
As for federal regulations, about 1,200 standards are incorporated by reference. The vast majority of those standards used to be Canadian, but now over a third of federal regulation standards are ISO or international standards.
The transition is ongoing, and this means that we are coming across fewer and fewer conflict situations like this one, concerning existing standards. Problems are arising in the case of new standards, processes and technologies. The Canada-European Union agreement will help Canadians participate in the development of standards in Europe, so Canadian interests will be taken into account before the final standards are adopted.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How do you detect products that do not meet our standards, as far as imports go? What comes to mind are those toys made in China using lead paint. I bring up the incident because it was the most well- known, but surely, there are other cases where products shipped to Canada could be harmful to Canadians or young children. You mentioned sleepwear earlier. That is a case we have known about for some time. I hope they have fixed the problem since.
What oversight mechanism, then, do you have in place for all of those other products; what barriers to entry exist to ensure that incoming products comply with standards and that non-compliant products are not distributed throughout the country?
Mr. Girard: The Standards Council of Canada accredits standards development organizations, as well as product- testing laboratories. That is our gateway into the standardization system domestically and abroad.
In terms of regulatory authorities, it obviously depends on the product type. If you are talking about consumer goods, a number of departments are involved. If you are talking about agricultural products, it would be the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and if you are talking about consumer products, it would be Health Canada.
Provincial authorities also come into play. They have different regulations, whether in regard to power safety or plumbing. Provincial authorities play a role; provincial inspectors are the ones who ensure that Canadian consumer products that are imported from one province and sold in stores carry the certification mark necessary.
The responsibility, then, is shared by different levels of government. When complaints are made, regulatory authorities can call on the standards council, and they will establish a mechanism to determine whether the complaint is founded.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am on the Scrutiny of Regulations Committee and I can tell you that the efforts being made are certainly not sufficient. People are not alerted, and because the standards do not arise directly from Canadian regulations, in most cases, they are not bilingual.
What steps do you take to ensure that unilingual international regulations are available to Canadians who want to be able to access them in both official languages?
Mr. Girard: That is an excellent question. The recommendation we give to federal and provincial regulators is to submit the standards they intend to incorporate by reference in their regulations as national standards of Canada. The national standards of Canada have to be available in both official languages. When the need arose in the past, we paid for the translation of such standards.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Your organization is the one that deals directly with the departments and ministries?
Mr. Girard: If it is necessary to incorporate a standard by reference in a set of regulations and it is not available in both official languages or it has not been reviewed by Canadian experts, we are the ones who recommend to the departments and ministries that they undertake the process to have the standard recognized as a national standard of Canada. And that is the extent of the Standards Council of Canada's authority, under the enabling legislation, to ensure that standards are available in both languages.
Senator Bellemare: My question has to do with that very problem of incorporation by reference. A few months ago, the Senate passed Bill S-12, giving us the authority to incorporate by reference fluid regulations, documents that were going to change. I was quite worried about how we were going to be advised of new international standards, how consumers or even manufacturers would be made aware of new standards. Could you please explain how that works? First of all, are you automatically notified when a standard changes in country X or Y? Do you make sure that the new standard protects Canadian interests even though it was developed somewhere else in the world? Give us an example, if you would. Tell us how it works.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Girard, please try to be concise, as a number of senators have questions they would like to ask.
Mr. Girard: Okay, I will try to keep my answer brief. Four years ago, we undertook a project to identify all the standards that had been incorporated by reference in federal regulations. We now have the technology to make sure we correctly identify all of them, a web crawler. Every year for the past three years, we have been providing federal departments with a detailed report on the standards that have been incorporated by reference in their regulations, as well as the details of the most recent publication available, including documents produced by international organizations when applicable.
At the international level, we have to conduct an analysis or review and republish a standard every five years. That is standard practice for international organizations, and the Standards Council of Canada subscribes to that practice. We believe standards should be reviewed every five years. In some instances, the standard will stay the same; in others, it will change.
What we do for federal regulators every year is provide them with a document listing all the new ISO, IEC and ITU standards published in the previous year. At that point, the regulators have to review the new version to make sure that it still meets their needs and make any necessary adjustments. Passage of the bill will make it much easier for regulators to follow up and ensure that the latest version of a standard is incorporated in their regulations. Normally, changes are made to a standard in order to add criteria and make it more stringent, basically, to ensure that any recent developments have been taken into account. It is quite rare that standards are lowered.
Senator Bellemare: Do you make sure that these changes do not conflict with Canada's interests? And if so, how do you do that?
Mr. Girard: The responsibility of determining whether the standard is still appropriate falls on the regulator. Every regulator is familiar with the body of legislation under their authority and knows where those standards are. We give them the information on new publications and editions, and the regulatory authorities take it from there. In the past, this information was not easily available to them, but now, we provide them with this tool so they can do reviews annually.
[English]
Senator Wells: I have a question about the external certifying authorities. You said your group is less than 100. First, I assume that yours is a coordinating role for certification of various products or testing of various products?
Mr. Briard: No, it's more than that. We are responsible for making sure that they get certified to a certain qualification per our SCC accreditation mark. We employ assessors — contractors, if you will — hence, some of the dollars you'll see spent in professional services are to go out and do audits and assessments to ensure they qualify under those particular standards, whether it's product or personnel.
Senator Wells: Okay, that's good. I'm looking at your website and I have the list of certification bodies. Some of these are industry associations. Do you see any inherent conflict in industry associations that are generally set up to advance the business interests of their members and are also the accredited certification body, for example, Water Quality Association, Organic Producers Association, Engineered Wood Association?
Mr. Briard: Overall, this is a voluntary system, so they would accredit themselves accordingly, and we would go in and audit and make sure that they comply with those standards that they want to hold up to the marketplace that they're complying to.
Senator Wells: Do they establish the standards or do you establish the standards?
Mr. Briard: No.
Mr. Girard: For the system to work, we ensure that the standards that are used for certification are standards that are either from international organizations that are recognized by the SCC or organizations that we accredit in Canada. In Canada there are now eight organizations that are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to develop standards. The CSA is the largest one, and you know about them.
Once the standard has been developed, we create a committee to establish a certification and accreditation program. That committee, as when we develop a standard, has to be a balanced matrix of various interests. You will have industry, consumers and academics at the table — and regulators as well, if it is of interest to regulators. They will design the accreditation program and, from the document that is published, basically — and you will see it under the list of scopes — we will then accredit organizations that apply for accreditation. It could be an association; it could be private sector organizations. The CSA group is a not-for-profit organization and we accredit them if they meet the requirements of the program.
Sandra E. Watson, Vice President, Communications and Corporate Planning and Corporate Secretary, Standards Council of Canada: The requirements that are set are not only Canadian requirements, they are international requirements. Whether it is an industry or a governmental organization that's accredited, they are subject to those international requirements that we ensure are followed through our accreditation programming.
Senator Wells: Are there any categories that are only within Canada or is this always an international exercise with UL, or IEC, or ISO? Are there any that fall outside of those?
Mr. Girard: To my knowledge, the only national accreditation program that we maintain here with no links to an international standard is the accreditation of the standard development organizations per se.
We had a document called CAN-P-1, and that's the document we use to determine if an organization that developed standards is doing it in accordance with our requirements. That would be the only one. All of the others are based on international ISO standards. Whether it's for lab accreditation, medical labs, food safety labs, those are the same. We base our programs on international standards, and that's the fundamental for mutual recognition between various bodies around the world.
Every year or two years we are audited by our peers in other regions of the world to make sure what we do is equivalent and consistent with other member bodies around the world.
The ultimate objective when it comes to removing trade barriers is one standard, one mark and one test around the world. We're still far from it, but that's really what we are aiming for when it comes to development and the use of standards, and also the certification of products and the accreditation of the bodies that certify those products.
Senator Wells: Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Mr. Girard, you said that Canada went from 10,000 to 3,000 standards. How does the Canadian conformity element come into play? Within such a system, is it still possible for Canadian conformity and quality to come together?
Mr. Girard: Yes.
Senator Chaput: How?
Mr. Girard: Say, ISO develops an international standard for toys. Regulators can then decide to make sure that the standard is applicable to Canada and will ask one of our organizations to accredit, adapt or adopt the ISO standard for the Canadian context in order to make it a national standard of Canada. Every year, approximately 120 international standards are reviewed by our accredited organizations and submitted as national standards of Canada.
Senator Chaput: Has Canada rejected any standards before?
Mr. Girard: When we contribute to the development of a standard internationally and the standard is important to Canada, we make sure that Canadians are involved in developing that international standard. That is really where the business of bargaining comes into play. Our observation has been that, in the vast majority of cases, the complaints and views of Canadian delegations are clearly heard and respected at the international level. Very seldom is an international standard to which Canada has contributed deemed unacceptable for implementation in Canada. Our success rate in helping to shape an international standard is close to 100 per cent, as far as presenting our position and voicing our complaints go, such that our contribution extends right up to the final product. But, yes, it can happen that regulators are not happy with the content of an international standard and make changes to it before adoption. That is the standard that is then used for product certification.
Senator Chaput: Who chooses the Canadians who stand up for the standards, and how does the process work? Is it the regulators' responsibility?
Mr. Girard: About 490 Canadian committees work on international standards, and some 2,600 Canadians participate. The process is as follows: when a committee needs to be set up because a matter has been deemed to have strategic importance to the country, we invite different groups who we believe should be represented to participate and we seek out volunteers.
Then, we make sure that the committee's makeup is balanced, with both industry and consumer representatives. Consumer unions from Quebec and Canada are very involved in standards development. Academics also participate. A committee secretary and chair are chosen. The committee then determines Canada's position and presents it in the international arena.
I would also like to say that all standards-related documents, including draft standards, are subject to a public comment period where submissions are made in writing. Committee chairs must ensure that all submissions are reviewed in response to the public's comments regarding the draft standards.
Senator Chaput: Is the council subject to the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Watson: The answer is yes.
Senator Chaput: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: I have two short questions. What happens in cases when both provincial and federal regulations exist? Which one takes precedence?
Mr. Girard: That does not happen very often. The BNA Act sets out the division of powers in such a way that we very rarely see a situation of that nature. We are more likely to see a federal department making regulations and using standards that end up falling within the same sphere as that of the province.
Senator Eaton: Every province has its own regulations. Are Ontario's different from Quebec's or Nova Scotia's? How does that work?
Mr. Girard: That is an excellent question. We, on our end, review standards incorporated by reference in regulations. And we have started doing the same thing for the provinces that we do for the federal government, that is, providing an inventory of the standards contained in a province's regulations so that, in a few years, it will be possible to compare what Quebec has incorporated in its public safety or public health regulations with what Ontario or other provinces have done.
That is something we will be doing over the next few years, in other words, building an inventory and promoting harmonization. There are instances where provincial standards are not aligned with one another.
Senator Eaton: That must cause problems for importers?
Mr. Girard: It causes problems for importers, yes, but also for Canadian manufacturers.
Senator Eaton: Okay.
[English]
Regarding the enforcement, you leave it to each ministry to enforce the standards. I think we heard in the Agriculture Committee last year that when we import wood from other countries, we don't demand the same standards as they demand from us. Is there something wrong with us? Why don't we?
Mr. Girard: Our role in Canada is to promote the highest standards when it comes to health and safety, the environment, but regulatory authorities have jurisdiction. They may decide to take a different approach from time to time. Our role is to make the highest standards documents available to them, raise awareness about the value of these standards, and promote the harmonization and alignment of standards between jurisdictions. That is our role, and we take this job very seriously.
Senator Eaton: Are you included in trade agreements? For instance, if we go into the TPP, is one of you taken along to negotiate standards?
Mr. Girard: In terms of the recent trade agreements, there's always a chapter on regulatory cooperation, alignment, harmonization, and standards are part of that chapter. So for Canada-EU, as I said earlier, we have two components there and we find them in other trade agreements as well.
Senator Eaton: But your more difficult ones will probably be with the TPP, I would imagine.
Mr. Girard: That's something we're looking at.
Senator Eaton: Very tactful response.
The Deputy Chair: You remind me of a great hockey player.
Senator Mockler: To follow up on Senator Eaton, there is no doubt this is cool. I was thinking of country-of-origin labelling. Can you please tell me if you are part of those negotiations and, if so, to what extent does it impact on the life of Canadians or North Americans?
Mr. Girard: Unfortunately, we're not.
Senator Mockler: Should you be?
Mr. Girard: I wish my CEO was here today.
Senator Mockler: Looking at his background as a farmer, he could probably answer that question.
Mr. Girard: In terms of trade negotiations, you have what they call the SPS — sanitary and phytosanitary provisions — which are a separate track from the others, and we belong to the others. It's something that we need to think about over the coming years. How are we going to merge basically the two systems so that international standards that could support a policy approach can be integrated and can be used?
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: In addition to cost, traceability has to be taken into account. That might be something you should think about as far as making that connection goes.
That brings me to another question. Non-residential wood construction companies are in the process of assessing the five factors tied to commercial and industrial wood construction, or buildings with more than three stories. Do you have any involvement in assessment pertaining to the National Building Code?
Mr. Girard: We do not have any direct involvement, unfortunately. National Research Council Canada is responsible for developing the five national model construction codes in conjunction with the provinces, including the National Building Code. The building code commission, under the council's direction, is really the body in charge of putting out the new version of the code every five years.
And when standards are necessary, the commission will call on accredited organizations to develop specific standards. We have no direct involvement in identifying the main thrusts, or even specific issues, when the next edition of the building code or fire code is being prepared for publication.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: We will have the National Research Council here next week so you'll be able to ask that type of question.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Senator Mockler and Senator Eaton raised the issue that concerns me, standards around the use of wood. For nearly two years, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry studied the issue. It heard from numerous witnesses, some for, some against. We heard from people in the concrete and steel industries who were not that supportive of changing the standards.
We hope that the provinces will someday be able to reach an agreement so that timber can be used in residential, commercial or industrial construction.
There is one thing I am curious about. You are responsible for standardization, and the French abbreviation for your organization is CCN, a government agency. Am I mistaken that your abbreviation is exactly the same as that of the National Capital Commission in French, Commission de la capitale nationale? It would be a good idea to change one of the two abbreviations.
Mr. Girard: Senator, it is worse in English, because our abbreviation also denotes the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Bellemare: Mr. Girard, you have piqued my interest about something as well. I am steering the discussion into areas that do not currently fall within your jurisdiction but that may in the future. As we listen to you, it becomes clear that your process for standardizing international standards is like a well-oiled machine.
As concerns workers, a very real dynamic is under way in a number of countries, resulting in the adoption of occupational and vocational standards for all kinds of trades and occupations. And that philosophy around labour standards is developing at the same time as all the changes going on in the labour market.
Do you think developing or harmonizing occupational standards, as they relate to the job market, will ever come under your area of responsibility, or is that another world entirely?
Mr. Girard: No, it is not an entirely different world. From a standards standpoint, the two worlds are parallel but still in the same solar system.
Over ten years ago, the Standards Council of Canada developed personnel certification programs. Should the need arise in the labour market or should regulators deem it appropriate, we could develop programs where a standard would be used to ensure that individuals wanting to work in a specific position could be tested and certified against that standard.
That would reduce the number of irritants between provinces, given that industry sectors are not that happy about the differences that exist from one jurisdiction to another. So, yes, we could play a role in that area. A request would simply have to be made, and then we would establish a committee, and develop a program to certify people in conjunction with provincial or federal professional bodies. It is something we could do.
I should point out that that is an important dimension, because we recently asked industry to provide us with some sort of indication as to the costs that arise when standards are not harmonized between provinces.
For instance, the representatives of one plumbing industry association in Canada carried out a study on water heaters. They realized that in Canada, in order to be able to sell a water heater, you need four different certifications for the unit, depending on the province where it is sold. This means that Canadians pay 4 per cent more when they buy a water heater, simply because several certifications are required for that product, whereas in the United States, in a market of 350 million, only two certifications are required: one for the United States as a whole, and one in California.
So, we can see that there is a problem there that has not really been examined in detail by regulatory authorities. I think that this issue does have an influence on the price differences. We are going to work with the industry to come up with case analyses to show that if the standards and certification processes are not brought into line, the ordinary Canadian citizen is the one who foots the bill.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you very much for your very interesting reply, which brings grist to the mill of this industry issue that is a very concrete one and has an impact on the cost of products and services.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Before we conclude, are there any final comments, Mr. Briard, that you could share with us?
Mr. Briard: No, other than to thank you again for the invitation to be here. It's always good for a small organization like ours to try to showcase some of the good things that we're doing for Canada.
The Deputy Chair: It may be a small organization, but the complexity of problems that you deal with is unique. One thing I got out of it, of course, besides many of the pieces of information, was the idea of jurisdiction and the importance of being able to work through these various challenges you face.
On behalf of our group, I thank you for your participation today.
(The committee adjourned.)