OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 20, 2003

Á

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Mr. Bob Émond (President, Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Bob Émond

Á

1120

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Pierre de Blois (Executive Director, Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Pierre de Blois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Pierre de Blois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Pierre de Blois

Á

1125

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Pierre de Blois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Pierre de Blois

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Bob Émond

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Bob Émond

Á

1130

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Mr. Bob Émond

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Bob Émond

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Bob Émond

Á

1135

Mr. Pierre de Blois

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Bob Émond

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 021

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order. The order of the day is Bill C-25. We are resuming our review of the act.

    I'd like to welcome, from the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada, Bob Émond and Pierre de Blois.

    I would like to begin by suggesting and asking the committee whether we could accept the submission by the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada and deem to have it entered into the record, rather than having you re-read it, since we really appreciate its brevity and the fact that you're hitting on some specific points. If the committee is in agreement, I would move to Mr. Forseth to commence questions. Would that be acceptable? Agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Bob Émond (President, Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada): Ten principles for a modernized HR management regime:

    1. The system must be based on values.

    2. Full responsibility for all staffing, classification, training, and labour relations activities must be delegated to deputy ministers, and from them to managers, along with clear accountability mechanisms.

    3. Protection of a modernized merit principle must be assured by an independent oversight body reporting to Parliament, such as the Public Service Commission.

    4. Simpler, faster, and more responsive recruiting, selection, promotion, and termination processes must be adopted, based on competencies and values.

    5. Executives and managers must be evaluated on how well they manage people in addition to what results they deliver.

    6. Mobility at all levels within the broader federal Public Service must be ensured.

    7. Recourse must be simplified and limited.

    8. There must be improved cooperation with the unions at the national and local levels, but with special emphasis on improving relationships locally.

    9. All corporate human resources activities and programs should be housed in a single organization.

    10. All learning programs should be grouped into one single organization.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    In your first point you say “The system must be based on values.” I ask you specifically, should those values be written down, and where? And are they adequately alluded to in the various preambles in the parts of the bill? We have to give some direction as to what values. How can we get that into legislation?

    Mr. Bob Émond: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Through you, we believe the values are adequately reflected in the draft legislation that is before you.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I see a great number of positive statements here, ten of them in all. Out of these specific ten, given the legislation, do you see any specific clauses that are inadequate to meet the standards of the points you make? If so, perhaps you could suggest a better wording for those specific clauses.

    Mr. Bob Émond: Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, there are no specific clauses that we recommend changing. However, as you will note in the document, which is based on the position paper we issued in November 2001, we would have preferred that the legislation be drafted in such a way as to allow for direct delegation and to have the Public Service Commission act as an oversight body. That is made very clear in the position paper.

    We accept that the construct of the legislation, and particularly the emphasis in the preamble on the employment component, does focus specifically on delegation and talks about delegation to managers and to the lowest levels in the organization. That is the one area where we would have preferred a slightly different regime.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: We know that delegation is going to happen, so really what you're suggesting is that the desired effect is more an operational one and an attitudinal one, perhaps, than a legislative one. Is that your signal to us?

    Mr. Bob Émond: Absolutely. We believe the legislation lays the foundation. Provided that as the changes are implemented—and there is a major cultural change involved; the legislation is not going to change the regime overnight—and so long as the Public Service Commission is sensitive to the intent of the legislation and allows for maximum delegation to line managers, with the appropriate accountabilities and without building a policy construct that is going to inhibit some of the proposed changes, then we think the regime will work.

    We also note that this legislation—and we applaud this in particular—is subject to review in seven years. The reason this is absolutely critical is that human resource legislation has not been effectively reformed for decades, and a regular cyclical review, we believe, will ensure that there is effective implementation of the principles and the intent.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: One last question. In number seven you say: “Recourse must be simplified and limited.” Perhaps in a competition, if someone wants to complain, there's going to be this new independent body, but the remedies available to this body.... It cannot simply vacate the decision and tell the organization to just do it all over again. The bill gets into all kinds of other compensation and considerations, even alluding to human rights business. That appears to me a problem in the bill. When you have a review tribunal, the simplest and most direct remedy that should be available is to say: “You didn't do it correctly; just do it over again,” and perhaps, “Allow new people to apply.” That's the principle that's applied in the hierarchy of courts and appeal and that appears to be a gap in the bill. Has that been identified in your prescription that says “Recourse must be simplified and limited”?

    Mr. Bob Émond: We are satisfied with the approach set down in the bill. If I go to the example you used where a tribunal would start the process over, that would engender huge delays in filling jobs, or significant disruption if the job were filled and then the tribunal found there were errors and they had to try to reverse the whole situation. So we believe the remedies suggested in the legislation make more sense, given that we are talking about filling positions.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): I will not have many questions, but I would be interested to know what are your views on the legal aspect. Have you considered the legal and even personal responsibility flowing from all this delegation to the Deputy Minister or to another manager?

    Mr. Bob Émond: Perhaps I could ask my colleague Pierre de Blois, who has more of a legal background than I have, to answer this.

    Mr. Pierre de Blois (Executive Director, Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. Indeed, public service managers already find that they are subjected to rather frequent legal action. That is why, parallel to this process, even though it does not appear in this bill, the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada has already asked the Treasury Board Secretariat to review the policy on indemnification of officials and public service employees. The reason for this is that there are more and more senior and mid-level managers who are being sued, either by individuals or in cases of harassment in the public service. They are not given adequate protection. So some changes are being proposed.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It is in another legislation.

    Mr. Pierre de Blois: It is not another legislation, but rather a guideline.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But it is a guideline that is included in the legislation in question, so it is an administrative guideline.

    Mr. Pierre de Blois: It is an administrative guideline, exactly.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You know that your potential responsibility is enormous.

    Mr. Pierre de Blois: Absolutely. From the beginning, senior and mid-level managers have been telling us that they want more authority, more responsibilities and a clearer accountability regime. Executive and mid-level managers are certainly not giving the impression that they are afraid by this. On the contrary, that is what they want.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is the only question I wanted to ask. For the rest, generally speaking, you do not have to improve upon or amend the bill. You are happy with it.

    Mr. Bob Émond: We find the bill has been well considered. Our only concern is that if we start to amend it, we should take care not to lose...

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We will bring amendments, in any case.

    Mr. Bob Émond: We should take care not to lose the intent of the legislation.

    Mr. Pierre de Blois: I would like to add something, somewhat in the same line as what Mr. Forseth has said and perhaps one of your concerns as well.

    On the issue of the number of appeals or actions that could follow, one should consider the context. According to the Public Service Commission's annual report, there were some 102 staffing or recruitment actions in 2001-02, and there were 70,000 jobs that could give rise to an appeal. But there were only some 1,400 appeals, and only 123 of them were sustained. So we should not lose sight of this context. It is not because some powers will be delegated that appeals will start flowing by the dozens of thousands.

    We are fully aware of the fact that we will be somewhat more vulnerable, but since the legislation allows us to settle more issues at the departmental level, between unionized employees and their managers, it is likely that more problems will be settled within the framework of internal relations within these departments and agencies, and not the opposite.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Of course, if the relationships between the manager and the union are good, but this is quite subjective. They are not really very much involved. Good luck.

    Mr. Pierre de Blois: I believe that they are already much more involved than we think.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is not what we've been hearing.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Monsieur Lanctôt.

    Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee.

    For my own information, so I'm clear, exactly what sector does your association represent? Could you give us some idea of their involvement in the public sector?

    Mr. Bob Émond: APEX represents the executive group in the government. There are some 3,400, of which about 45% are members. We are a volunteer association.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So you're a volunteer association with bargaining rights.

    Mr. Bob Émond: No.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: You're just more or less a loosely structured...?

    Mr. Bob Émond: It's a formal association with bylaws and a board of directors. Executives do not bargain compensation or other terms of conditions of employment. We are an excluded group. The association has been in existence for about 20 years.

    We do two things. First, we provide position papers on the compensation, the terms and conditions issue, but it is not a bargaining process. We represent our members and other executives on issues.

    Equally important, though, we are committed to ensuring that we contribute to having the most professional public service in the world. For this reason we issue position papers on human resource modernization, for example, among other things. The executives are deeply committed to ensuring we have the best public service in the world.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Excellent.

    Under number 4 of your submission you say:

4. Simpler, faster and more responsive recruiting, selection, promotion andtermination processes must be adopted, based on competencies andvalues.

    We've certainly heard from other sectors that have appeared before us that the way it exists today it just doesn't do any of that.

    So in your view, does the bill go far enough to support a system for staffing that works more quickly and lets managers hire the people they need when they need them? What are your comments on that?

    Mr. Bob Émond: The association and I believe the bill goes far enough. The question remains as to how this is going to be implemented. I have worked in the public service for many years now and have been in the human resource business, and it strikes me that the foundation is very solid. But again, if we wind up with a regime that provides solid legislation but inappropriate and ineffective policy constructs or limitations on delegation, then we may not achieve the objective that is desired. But I don't see that as being a problem with the legislation; it's a matter of monitoring the implementation, and we will monitor it if this bill is passed.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Good.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I have the feeling that we have already met in other committees. Both your faces seem very familiar to me.

    As I understand the report that you have circulated to us, these ten principles become in fact a sort of checklist that could be used by this committee when studying the specific clauses of the bill. It could also be used by yourself or others during the analysis of the implementation of the act. Is that correct?

    Mr. Bob Émond: That is correct.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: So, if I understand fully what you are proposing here, in these ten points, it would not be useful to ask you whether you are proposing greater mobility than what is already being proposed by the president of the Treasury Board. In your point number 6, it is mentioned that mobility at all levels withing the broader federal public service must be ensured. Your answer to this, if I understood you correctly, is that you find what is being proposed to be satisfactory.

    Mr. Bob Émond: When they started creating agencies and redefining the public service, they realized that this did not facilitate mobility between agencies and departments that are the core of the public service.

    What is being proposed in the bill, in my view, will facilitate mobility. Some of our members who work in various agencies have concerns in this regard.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you. I still have a few secondes, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to know the process that you followed to draft these principles. Were they voted on by your membership as a whole? What was the input of your members in this regard?

    I ask the question, Mr. Chair, in the perspective of this committee perhaps using these ten principles in the future.

    Mr. Bob Émond: Mr. Chair, our association has been working for several years now on a reform of human resources management in the federal public service. To do so, we have conducted many consultations. In 1998, we have made proposals to the Secretary of the Treasury Board, to the chair of the Public Service Commission and to the clerk.

    In the summer of 2001, we have made consultations throughout the country, on the request of the working group headed by Mr. Quail. We have consulted hundreds and hundreds of executives, young officials and mid-level managers, and we have then finalized and tabled our document in November of 2001.

    In my view, this document reflects the perspective of a great majority of managers and I would even say of public service employees. We do not put our proposals to a vote, but our position has been approved by our board of directors.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Pierre de Blois: I can tell you, Ms. Folco, that two important public meetings were organized by our association in 1998 and in 2001. More than 700 or 800 people took part in these meetings and reviewed, with a view to a reform, the needs of executives and managers and younger officials of the public service.

    As my chairman has just said, for three years, this gave rise to several pancanadian consultations. We published a document indicating some positions. This document, that will be circulated to you, is probably the only document of its kind on the public service reform to have been published and circulated largely within the public service in the past two years.

    That document has served, up to a certain point, as a benchmark for the whole public service. For us, as Mr. Émond has already said, there was no voting procedure in our consultation, but we really reflect the consensus of opinions expressed by executives and managers by younger officials and even, in the case of some consultations, by unionized employees.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming before us and presenting a very succinct and thoughtful presentation. It's certainly a reflection of an earlier debate we had this morning on testimony that comes before this committee.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bob Émond: Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members for inviting us to present. We consider it a privilege. Merci beaucoup.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): You're very welcome.

    The meeting is adjourned.