OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 28, 2003

Á

1115

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Â

1210

Mr. James Mitchell (Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.)

The Chair

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

Â

1215

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. James Mitchell

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. James Mitchell

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. James Mitchell

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. James Mitchell

Mr. Paul Szabo

Â

1225

Mr. James Mitchell

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Â

1235

Mr. James Mitchell

Mr. Ken Epp

Â

1240

Mr. James Mitchell

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Mr. James Mitchell

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Â

1245

Mr. James Mitchell

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. James Mitchell

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon (President, Canadian Centre for Management Development)

Â

1255

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

·

1305

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

·

1310

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

·

1315

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

·

1320

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

·

1325

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

Mr. Paul Forseth

·

1330

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 031

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): We'll begin our public session.

    We have at the table Mr. Mitchell, who is, I'm told, a person of vast experience. While he, I'm sure, will take no personal credit for any particular piece of the bill, he is certainly in a position to offer us the benefit of his experience in these issues.

    Mr. Mitchell.

  (1210)  

    Mr. James Mitchell (Partner, Sussex Circle Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As the members of the committee may be aware, I served as an advisor to the task force on HR reform from about October 2001 to a couple of months ago. So that's my engagement with the file. I am a consultant here in Ottawa. I'm a former public servant. I spent much of my time in the Privy Council Office. It was in that capacity, as a policy advisor to government, that I was engaged by the task force to give them advice. That's all I have to say.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Forseth, do you wish to begin, as is your prerogative, or do you wish to pass?

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I'll pose this question. You've certainly had time to review the bill. I understand a variety of models and paths or journeys were considered, and obviously, choices had to be made. I'm wondering if you have any insight about that process, looking at what we have as an end product. The committee certainly wants to have a little more in-depth understanding of the subterranean process that led to the shape of the bill we have. We sometimes have to understand how we got there and what were some of the models considered in order to properly evaluate what we're dealing with. Rather than just what's on the plate, we need to see what was discarded. So maybe you can help us by providing some of the surrounding information, not merely comment on the bill itself.

  (1215)  

    Mr. James Mitchell: I think there are real limits to what I can give by way of information on the process by which the task force and the government came to the bill you have before you, because I wasn't present at the discussions where they were saying, let's do this model or this model or this model. My role was really providing advice to them, both orally and, as you know from the papers you have before you, occasionally in writing on some of the issues that came up in their considerations. If you've had any chance at all to look at the papers you have before you, you'll see that what I was doing was commenting on particular issues or particular choices they had before them. I'm not in a position to enlighten the committee on why were they choosing this or that. The bill you have before you I think represents an effort to strike a balance in a reform package between increased management flexibility and strengthened accountability over management. That's what I see in the bill that's been tabled in Parliament. There's nothing I'm unwilling to discuss, but I'm just not privy to those discussions at all.

    The Chair: If I may, Mr. Mitchell, though, you may be assuming a piece of information that is just not in evidence. We have received all the documentation, but members do not have it yet, because the binder came late on Friday, and it is currently being copied. So Mr. Forseth is flying a bit in the dark, although these structural issues have come up several times.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Then we'll go at it another way. Let's use your personal expertise. Obviously, you had some strong feelings, you made some clear recommendations. You would be satisfied to see some of your recommendations reflected in the bill, but are there are couple of items where you're somewhat disappointed, where it didn't really meet your expectations or they just didn't accept your advice? Maybe that would be an easier way, looking at your advice to see what was not accepted and to try to figure that out.

    Mr. James Mitchell: From the beginning I was a proponent of reform. When the members see the papers, you'll see that I did argue that some change to the public service employment and staffing regime was important, that it was overdue, that the current system the government is working with really is not working well today in the interests of the government, of public servants, and most importantly, of Canadians. The staffing system doesn't work very well. The labour relations system, on which I am not an expert and have observer views, I don't think serves the interests of either employees or management. I think everyone has suffered from a lack of clarity on who is responsible for what.

    So the bill you have before you there does meet the objectives I had as an interested observer and occasional advisor to government, as a reform package that clarifies responsibilities in a meaningful way, that maintains a meaningful role for the Public Service Commission as the overseer of the system, as the protector of merit, as an auditor of what the government is doing on staffing, that puts more flexibility into the hands of management, that is, deputy ministers and subordinate managers, but within a legal and policy and oversight framework that protects the public interest in a merit-based public service. That's what I was looking for in a reform package.

    My own view is that there is a balance to be struck. I am sure there are people who think the bill does not go far enough in giving freedom and authority to management, I am sure there are other people who think it doesn't do enough to guard against abuse of the system by management, but my view is that it actually strikes a very reasonable and practical balance in that respect. What I was looking for, I would say, is almost entirely reflected in the bill.

    There are areas of the bill where I didn't give any advice and I don't really have an informed view, for example, the details of the labour relations changes. I didn't give an opinion on the changes to the Canadian Centre for Management Development and the creation of the School of Public Administration, but I think they're good things to do. I think the changes to the Employment Act and the employment regime are the right sorts of changes to make.

    Are there any areas where I'm disappointed that the government didn't act? In all frankness, no.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Forseth. We'll come back to you.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you.

    We're in the middle of clause-by-clause, we're into the last strokes, so we have to focus. You're a proponent for change. I don't think I've heard anybody say anything to the contrary on that, so we're okay there. Dealing with who is responsible for what, I don't think I've heard anybody saying we shouldn't be doing that.

    You spoke generally about the freedom and authority of management, and then got more specific and referred to potential for abuse by management, saying we have a balance. How are we going to explain to our valued public servants that we have a balanced approach to the amount of authority management can exercise? The words maybe came out wrong. Is there in this bill a specific item you could cite that would permit abuse by management of their authority?

    Mr. James Mitchell: If I left that impression, that was not my intention at all. I don't see that the bill as it's written opens the door to abuse by management, for several important reasons. First and foremost, it maintains a strong role for the Public Service Commission as the overseer and protector of merit, which I think is very important. Second, it imposes on the Treasury Board an obligation to report to Parliament, which gives you parliamentarians an annual opportunity to satisfy yourselves that things are working properly. Third, it introduces a much more efficient, modern, and real recourse system that enables individuals who feel their rights have not been respected to get recourse much more quickly than today.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Sussex Circle Inc. is a consulting firm. How much work has your firm done for the government in any aspect over what period of time?

    Mr. James Mitchell: We work almost entirely for the government. We're in the business of providing policy and organizational advice to the government on a wide range of issues. We work for most departments and many agencies of government, and we have done so for eight and a half years.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The issue is the independence or objectivity of your position with regard to this important act. You've done all of it in the past, and I suspect that you would want to have all the business in the future, and it would be kind of dangerous for you to come here and say anything other than that you're not disappointed with any aspect of the act.

    Mr. James Mitchell: All I can do is say to you I think I have a reputation I've established in this city and in the government over more than 20 years. We do almost our work for government, and personally, I do 99% of my work for the government. I can't do any private sector, because I've done too much government work. In other words, to avoid any conflict, I work only for the government.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The last question I have is with regard to process. A number of the witnesses we've had have suggested that the process of consultation is not as comprehensive as they would have liked. With your observations of what the task force did and the stakeholders' involvement at various levels, are you satisfied that the level of consultation was sufficiently comprehensive that all stakeholders had more than ample opportunity to have input in shaping this legislation?

  (1225)  

    Mr. James Mitchell: As far as I know, the task force was in regular consultation with all the different stakeholders, but I'm reporting that to you at second hand. I wasn't involved in those consultations, but I do know they were talking with public service unions and other interested parties. That's what I was told.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

    The Chair: I'm going to move back to Mr. Epp in a second, but I'd like to ask just one question that follows up on these two, dealing with the Public Service Employment Act. Part of the intention of these changes was to streamline accountability and responsibility and to step aside from 30 years of experience that has just built a system that is cumbersome. One of the comments was that if a public service employer identified a sharp young graduate they wanted to hire, it might be six months before they could actually confirm their hiring. So there's a desire to move into a system that is more flexible, faster, and more accountable, where people who hold responsibility are identified as such. What I don't understand, then, is why we've maintained this three-headed model. There seems to be a desire to move the Public Service Commission into more of an audit function accountable to the House, one that oversees, comments on, and is part of the accountability structure, so that managers don't abuse their authority, as Mr. Szabo has mentioned. Yet rather than making that step, all they've done is identify that it would be a good thing to do and say the Public Service Commission can delegate, not “shall” delegate, but it maintains authority. The Clerk of the Privy Council remains the head of the Public Service, and Treasury Board is the employer. How has that clarified accountability?

    Mr. James Mitchell: That's a very good question, but I think what you have in the bill before you does actually clear up some long-standing problems of accountability we've had in the public service and parliamentarians and the Auditor General have commented on over many years.

    You do have the Treasury Board there as the employer still, but I think there's a good reason for that. As I have commented in various places, I think Parliament needs to be able to hold a single minister, not a committee of ministers, accountable for something. It's not a good answer to Parliament to say, we have 26 ministers who are employers, and if you've got a question, you have to call 26 ministers. Parliamentarians, in my experience, want somewhere they can turn for a clear answer and for clear accountability. I also think it's a good idea to have a single employer because I think it's a good idea to have a single public service. If you had 26 different departmental employers, you'd have 26 little public services, and I don't think that's in the best interest of Canadians. So still to have the Treasury Board as the employer I think is a good thing, for good reasons of management and of parliamentary accountability.

    To have the Public Service Commission there on the scene playing now a clearly defined oversight, audit, and merit protection role I think is a good thing, because that's what helps to satisfy not only parliamentarians, but also Canadians that you're running a professional, merit-based, non-partisan public service. That's what I see as the role of the commission ever since 1918, and I think it's a good thing to continue that. You can have two actors on the scene there, I think, for sure.

    The third actor you mentioned, the Clerk of the Privy Council, his role is very different. It's not comparable to that of the Treasury Board or the Public Service Commission. His role is really as a single, identifiable point of leadership in the public service of the public service. He's really identified in the law. This was a change that happened when I was still back in the government. His role is leadership of the public service by the person who is traditionally regarded as the most senior public servant. In that regard, he or she makes a report once a year--you have a former clerk here today--on how they see the public service, what they see as the challenges before it, and how they see things moving forward. But the Clerk of the Privy Council has no statutory authority and is not in any way comparable to the President of the Treasury Board or the President of the Public Service Commission.

    You've still got two actors on the scene. You've got a third player who's a different sort of person. Then, of course, you have individual deputy ministers as managers too.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: What would be the consequence of making Treasury Board the employing authority as well as the employer and taking the Public Service Commission out of that role entirely and making them the auditor? Why maintain the split authority?

    Mr. James Mitchell: I think that's a very good illustration of one of the points of balance in this bill. You certainly could do that, and I'm sure that's a model that was considered. The risk there is that it could be perceived as putting too much authority into the hands of management and not really leaving the protector of merit with enough authority to make the protector and oversight role meaningful. My assessment of the bill you have before you is that leaving the commission with the appointment authority, but encouraging and expecting that they will delegate it and ensuring that they can withdraw that delegation if they're not satisfied that it's being properly exercised, is all a way of saying appropriate authority and flexibility for management on the one hand, meaningful, strong oversight on the other. I see that as a balance there.

    The Chair: How's this model, on that point, different from the current model?

    Mr. James Mitchell: Basically because the commission is in many ways still playing a substantial HR management role, as opposed to--

    The Chair: With small departments.

    Mr. James Mitchell: With small departments, but it's not clear to deputies or to ministers or to public servants or to the commission, I don't think--you'd have to ask them--whether the commission is inside the management tent partly or outside the management tent really. I think what the bill does is clarify that management is one thing and the commission's oversight and merit protection role is something else. I think that's a very important step forward.

    The Chair: Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for being here.

    I have a very direct series of questions I want to ask with respect to the basic philosophy of civil service management, the organization, and this particular bill. How do you actually determine who gets hired and who gets promoted? As a member of this committee, I, as I'm sure all of my colleagues are, am being inundated by e-mails and faxes from different individuals and groups concerned about different issues. Two of them are the merit principle and employment. Those are the ones we're really hearing about. You've used the phrase today a number of times that this bill protects merit. I want to have you tell us how specifically you think this bill does that and, maybe even before you do that, what merit means to you, because I really think there's a lack of definition in it.

  (1235)  

    Mr. James Mitchell: Perhaps I could start by reminding the committee--because I'm sure the committee is aware of this--that to date the way we have operated the merit system in the public service, the way we've translated the merit principle into action, has been to operate a very complex system of selecting the most qualified person for the job. To that end and as a result of many years of litigation and decisions by tribunals and courts and whatnot, we have a system that has now become exceptionally complex. The process of finding the most highly qualified person for the job out of the pool of candidates turns into an unbelievably complex, lengthy, and time-consuming exercise. The result is that managers can't find staff to fill jobs, people who want to fill jobs can't get staffed into them in a timely way, and the public service loses too often the talent it needs to do the job that should be done. We have defined merit in the past as the placing of the most qualified person into the job. What we've found is that the process of doing so is so cumbersome that it just doesn't work any more, the system is broken, and as a result, people are going around the system.

    You ask how I would define merit. As I understand it--and I'm not a detailed expert on the bill--the bill now says merit is going to be defined as the appointment of a fully qualified person, someone who clearly and objectively meets the requirements of the job as determined publicly and in writing by management and is selected in a way that is demonstrably transparent and fair. So instead of having a cumbersome process to try to decide which of 100 people is the most qualified, what you're going to have is a system that will enable the selection of persons who are definitely, clearly qualified for the job. I think that understanding of merit meets the interests of Canadians in ensuring that their public service is filled with qualified people and that people get jobs in government on a fair basis, not through favouritism, for example. I see all of that as a positive way of articulating what merit means in 2003, and I think that's a definition that is fair to the individuals concerned and meets the needs of Canadians and of the government to get people into jobs and get the job done.

    With respect to things like employment equity, in my own career I've had a lot to do with it. I was responsible for that policy area when I was in the Treasury Board. I'm a believer in employment equity, and I see nothing in the bill that would in any way hamper the government's capacity to pursue employment equity objectives. I think employment equity as a goal of public service management is perfectly consistent with the concept of merit that's articulated in the bill and with good management and the placing of fully qualified people into jobs.

    Mr. Ken Epp: But I would think employment equity and straight merit, as you define it, will frequently collide. Occasionally, you will have a department that has been mandated by the Employment Equity Act to increase their number of people in one of the identifiable groups, and yet the applicants for a particular position may be such that the person who meets the employment equity criteria is fourth down the list on the merit criteria. So how do you reconcile those?

  (1240)  

    Mr. James Mitchell: I think the new provisions make it less of a problem to reconcile the merit principle and the goals of employment equity than under the present system. Under the present system, where you're obliged by the law to pick the most qualified and where you may at the same time have an employment equity objective of increasing the representation of members of the designated groups, some people have seen difficulty reconciling those two objectives, but under the new bill, where you're obliged to appoint on the basis of merit someone who meets the requirements of the job, you can say, we also have the goal of, let's say, increasing our representation of aboriginal persons in this department, because it's way below the proportion of the population, so we're going to take this fully qualified person here because they meet the requirements of the job and they're also aboriginal, let's say, or a person with a disability, or a visible minority. I think this serves the two goals quite well. In a way, it protects fairness. I have as big an interest in fairness as I think the members do, and I see nothing in the bill that would undermine the basic objective of fairness and merit-based public service.

    Mr. Ken Epp: It's curious, in view of your responses, that we're getting these e-mails. You've read the same bill they have read, and they are very concerned. I didn't bring any of these with me today, but I have a small stack of them in my office. They simply say the goals of employment equity are just going to be trashed under this bill, they're very concerned about it, and they urge the members not to pass the bill in its present form. I'm trying to reconcile in my mind what they're actually saying, because when I read the bill, I tend to agree with you, that it is better than what they've had in the past, yet I get a mixed message out of it.

    Mr. James Mitchell: I truly don't see why people would have the concern Mr. Epp has mentioned. I'm perfectly satisfied that the bill does enable the government to pursue employment equity objectives, but to maintain a merit-based public service.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.

    I have a question from Madame Folco, and then I think members will move on.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I am very happy to be speaking after Mr. Epp because my question is similar to his, but I would ask you to give me a more specific answer.

    It is true that we have all received messages from various groups. Those I have received came from groups in Quebec with whom I had worked and who are very knowledgeable about employment equity. You have just stated that a balance has been maintained between the merit principle and employment equity.

    I would like you to tell us what there is in this Bill that protects employment equity, since regulations will be changed. Do you believe that the new regulations will be similar, or even better, which would allow for more success in this field? If at all possible, Mr. Mitchell, I would like you to give us concrete examples.

    Mr. James Mitchell: Madam Folco, my French is not perfect.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: You can answer in the language of your choice, Mr. Mitchell. I would like the answer to be as specific as possible.

  (1245)  

    Mr. James Mitchell: I won't speak in detail about the provisions of the Bill but I will speak about the balance between the merit principle and the goals of the employment equity policy and legislation.

[English]

It's not so much balancing two principles as making sure the merit principle that underpins employment in the public service is consistent with the policy and legal obligations the government has for employment equity. As far as I understand it, the government remains bound by its obligations under the Employment Equity Act. So the public service was brought under that act and the obligations public service employers and managers have under that act remain. There's nothing in this bill I'm aware of that would change that. As to why the government didn't address employment equity in more detail in this bill, I honestly don't know. I would assume it's because they've made it clear that they continue to have the same obligations under this other act and that nothing changes in that respect. From my knowledge and experience here, I'm not sure I would see a need to address it again in this act, because it's already addressed in a legal obligation of the government under another act of Parliament. The law is there.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I want to be sure that we are talking about the same legislation. Which other act are your alluding to?

[English]

    Mr. James Mitchell: The Employment Equity Act, as far as I know.

[Translation]

The Employment Equity Act.

[English]

    As far as I'm aware--I'm not a lawyer, and I'm relying on memory here--several years ago the government deliberately brought the public service under the provisions of that act. So the government has bound itself in the way it was formerly binding other federal employers, the railways, the telephone companies, the banks, and things like that. As far as I know, the government's obligations under employment equity remain the same, they are not changed or subverted by this act. I'm not sure, if I were drafting this act, that I would re-address employment equity, when I've already got it addressed in another act of Parliament.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Thank you, Madame Folco.

    Mr. Mitchell, before I allow you to leave, I do want to ask for a general comment. Our very efficient researcher here has directed me to one of your papers, which I found quite interesting, on this issue of the role. I'm sure, having read it, we will have all sorts of questions that may or may not get answered or we may not have time to even deal with.

    There were two years of, I believe, very competent preliminary work done on this, and during that time you will look at lots of competing models that people will reject for good reasons. There's no magic in that. I, frankly, don't think there should be any concern about people knowing there was that kind of debate. At the end of the day, governments have to decide and they choose a course of action. It strikes me that modern public management is about management of people and management of human resources. I've been on a constant search for the number of people employed by us, and I now have a new high. I have 453,568 here, which is the highest number I've received to date, 164 of whom are employed by Treasury Board--this is as of March 31, 2002. It astounds me that in a debate of this magnitude there has been so little public discussion of this. Even when we called for witnesses, a very small number of people were interested, there was no big debate, on something as fundamentally important as ensuring that we have a confident, well-supported, well-led public service. It must be frustrating for people like you and others who work in this area that there isn't greater public examination and public debate of these issues, because ultimately, these are the people who make government work. Do you have any comment?

    Mr. James Mitchell: I agree 1000% with what you've just said, sir. I and many other people welcome the creation of this committee, for example, because it does provide a parliamentary forum where these kinds of issues can be debated, considered, given prominence, put in the newspaper, and all that sort of thing. I don't mind telling you that over many years people like me, who've worked on public service issues in various dimensions, have been disappointed that there's not been greater public attention, greater public interest, often greater political interest, often greater parliamentary interest in these matters. So when this committee was created, a lot of people said, that's terrific, because it's a sign of parliamentary attention to something that is very important. So I couldn't agree more.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: It's unfortunate that we're coming into this late in the process, because we are caught between not wanting to stop the momentum that has built up with this important body of work and being satisfied that we've reached as far as we can in modernizing the management of the public service.

    I thank you very much. I appreciate your willingness to appear before us today. You may find you have phone calls from other members following up once we've had a chance to go through the documentation.

    Mr. James Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I appreciate your patience too.

    Mr. James Mitchell: Not at all. Thank you.

    The Chair: Madame Bourgon, we will move expeditiously here. As always, I appreciate your patience. I think we actually called you for around 12 o'clock, but the committee has actually been engaging in this for some time now.

    There was concern at the time we were going through the bill that something as important as the framing of information, introducing people to the public service, etc. had been overlooked in looking at the two larger pieces of legislation here. It was not that they had been overlooked by the task force or those designing, but we, certainly, as a committee, had not spent the requisite amount of time thinking about the changed entity that was being created. Given that you were heavily involved in that, we would be interested in hearing a bit about your view of the new CCMD model, and then members can go where they wish.

[Translation]

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon (President, Canadian Centre for Management Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Canada School of Public Service. I can contribute to your debates about this part of the Bill.

[English]

    I will not make a long statement, but just to position the school in a broad context, I would say the Parliament of Canada made a great gift to the Public Service of Canada when it passed the bill in 1991 creating the Canadian Centre for Management Development. Prior to that time there was not an organization dedicated to supporting the training, development, and learning needs of thousands of people. Tens of thousands of people were expected to manage all the services rendered to citizens and all the support functions for government and Parliament. That was a great step forward in 1991. It was not that far back in our past. This committee is now deliberating on the possibility of making a second gift to the public service of Canada by creating a great school of public administration, a school that this time is dedicated to all of those who practise the profession of being public servants, whether or not they are managers. That's the big change in the act.

[Translation]

    In 1991, we created an Institute for public service managers. In 2003, our proposal is based on the fact that, at this point in the history of the Public Service, the Public Administration Institute has been created to be of service to the professionals and managers of the Public Service. The training of those who will be called upon to manage activities, programs and services in the Public Service must start well before they become managers, well before they are entrusted with public monies and the management of hundred or thousands of employees.

  (1255)  

[English]

    What you have in front of you is the consolidation of two institutions, the Canadian Centre for Management Development, whose mission was to support the training, development, and learning needs of managers, and another organization called Training and Development Canada, which focused essentially on public servants, the employees. It's bringing them together under one roof. The model in front of you is something I keep describing as one mission, one team: one mission, public administration, public sector, public servant as a profession, public service manager; one team, the professional team of the two organizations coming together. That's basically what you have in front of you. It is a major step forward, a positive step that is presented to you, and one that is deserving of your consideration.

    What does it mean? It means the school would have the mandate of preparing all the men and women who share a profession, which is to be a public servant. It means they should share common knowledge and common know-how in a number of domains, understanding Parliament, understanding parliamentary accountability, ministerial accountability, government responsibility, common values, common principles, the principle of public good, probity, integrity, all the things that are common to everybody who is a public servant. It doesn't matter in what department you're serving, there is a body of knowledge that is common to all. The same thing can be said about public service managers.

    This model, which I keep calling the one mission, one team approach, is going to help manage a number of profound transformations the institution will go through. You've probably heard other witnesses talking about the demographic reality of the public service. There is a significant change in the demographic reality of the public service, and we will have to recruit massively. These people deserve to be supported in their responsibility and to receive along the way the training they need to fulfil, in a manner that allows them to exercise the responsibility assigned to them, their accountability through government to Parliament. That's basically the project in front of you.

    I was listening to the questions put to Mr. Mitchell. I will go one step further. I'm no expert in the bill, far from that. You have a very expert witness I saw in the room who can help you in the clause-by-clause consideration of every other section. I read in some of your questions an interest in understanding the other options that could have been considered along the way and how we ended up where we are in the proposal presented to you. If that is of interest to the group, I could venture that way.

    The model that has been selected is really building a school of public administration dedicated to the public service of Canada. There are other models, if you look around the world. The model that is reflected in the bill is along the lines of what you would find in most other developed and industrialized countries. The Government of Canada and the proposal are in good company. That's what you would find in the U.K., that's what you would find, although modified, in France, that's what you would find in Switzerland, in Belgium, and you could go on. That's what you would find in some advanced countries in Asia as well, in South America, and so on.

    What could be other models? Let me speak to what the model is not. By saying what it is not, I'm answering the question. The bill in front of you is not proposing a centralized approach to all training development and learning. There are at least 25 training and development centres today in the Government of Canada. There are five just in the Department of Foreign Affairs, there are two in the Department of National Defence, there is one in almost every department, and sometimes more than one. This bill is not proposing that we centralize all training. It is, in fact, recognizing the special responsibility of every department to provide training on at least two counts. First, departments have the responsibility of providing the training related to the mission of their department, because they are in the best position to do it. They have the knowledge, they have the expertise, they will always do it better than if we try to do it for every department. Second, departments have the responsibility of ensuring that each and every one of their employees has the proper grounding or training to fulfil the job in which they are expected to perform, air traffic controller if we are in that domain, food inspection if we're talking about the Food Inspection Agency, and so on. Training for jobs is the primary responsibility of departments.

·  (1300)  

    So this model is not about a centralized approach to all training, but is supporting the responsibility of departments in these two domains, training for mission, training for job. The school is expected to focus on those domains that involve common knowledge, common know-how, corporate priorities, common needs of all public servants and all public service managers. That's the domain in which we're expected to make a contribution.

    The second thing the school is not is a school that is expected to be specialized in everything, because when you are expected to be specialized in everything, you end up not being specialized in much. This is a school of public administration. It does not, for instance, provide specialized training, and I'll pick two or three examples. We have an institute dealing with IT training with Public Works and Government Services. That makes sense, because if you're going to be in specialized training, the specialty training should be where there resides the greatest level of expertise. So those people who are creating the IT infrastructure of the Public Service of Canada are at the leading edge, and those at the leading edge should be providing the training related to a specialty. We are not expected to provide military training, for obvious reasons. It's specialty training. The training should rest with those who have the greatest expertise and do it well, and that's the Department of National Defence. The Department of Foreign Affairs has an institute preparing foreign service officers to perform in 42 languages. That is specialty training, it is not public administration. It is a domain, unique in itself, that deserves to be respected as it is.

    So the model in front of you is a school of public administration that brings together public servants, professionals, and public sector managers. It is not a centralized approach to all training, and it is not expected to create a huge campus where we would have all the specialties. The specialty, the unique niche is public administration.

    What else could I say to start the discussion that would be useful to you? Sorry to say, like my predecessor, I'm going to say I believe the bill has struck a very good and solid balance for the portion on which I'm commenting. It is creating, as I've already explained, a school of public administration. It is able to fulfil its accountability by focusing on common knowledge, common know-how, corporate priorities, and best practices. It is a school that is specialized in adult learning. It is embracing a philosophy of blended learning, as it is not true that you only learn when you go to a classroom. You learn in the workplace, you learn by reading, you learn with computer assistance, you learn by creating networks, so the philosophy is blended learning. It is a school entirely dedicated to the public service, and so it has its own domain of expertise, and we believe we're already not too bad at it.

    I think it is a positive step forward. I know it sounds like a cliché, but I really mean it: I think it is a step that continues to ensure that we are one of the best public services in the world, and I have had the chance to study what they are doing in many countries by now.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: We'll return to that claim in a minute.

    Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

    Thanks for sharing your wisdom here.

    After you had your little stint as secretary to the cabinet, you went directly to this centre?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Yes.

·  (1305)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: And you're called the president of it?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Yes.

    Mr. Ken Epp: How many campuses do you have, or how many locations for training? Hundreds? Thousands?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: One. There are two ways of supporting training development and learning. One is to say the learner should come to a building, so it's anchored in building. Or you say the teaching will go where the learners are, and that's what we do. So whenever we have a critical mass, on average, I would say, between 15 and 25 people, on any topic in which we provide training, we will go anywhere in the country.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Is that going to change?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: No.

    Mr. Ken Epp: So you'll continue to do that?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: That is my recommendation to the school. The next president and the next board of governors may have a different view, but my strong advice would be to maintain that approach, which ensures that you can be in remote communities as efficiently as you can be in downtown Toronto or Ottawa.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

    Does the Centre for Management Development disappear when this bill is enacted? Is it replaced by the new system or will it be in addition to it?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: The bill is basically taking two entities, CCMD and TDC, and replacing them with the Canada School of Public Service.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

    Are you going to apply for the job of president of the new one?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: No.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I'm surprised. It seems to me you've finally learned your job, and now you want to get out of it.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: I agree with you. It's one of the best jobs.

    After my little stint as secretary to the cabinet, which went on for five years, I asked to be given and I had the great privilege of being given the opportunity of running the Canadian Centre for Management Development, where I had another stint of four years. I've spent the last year and a half laying the foundation of what will, if you agree, become the school. I think it is time now for a change of leadership. It's the right time. So we go from one cycle, which was to rebuild the capacity of CCMD, integrating with the policies and the practice of TDC, and now, if you pass the legislation, I think it's ready for a new leader who is going to be there for the next four or five years.

    Mr. Ken Epp: So you had some pretty meaningful input into the bill?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: In the section dealing with the school, yes.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. That's appropriate, by the way.

    Now I want to ask a question with respect to the education part. I don't whether you're aware of it, but I was an educator for 31 years, and I always say, where I work now, it seems very difficult for anybody to learn anything. They don't show up and they don't pay attention. But anyway, that's an aside.

    The Chair: It sounds like a committee in Parliament.

    Mr. Ken Epp: As a director for educational processes, you obviously are in the job also of hiring people to offer the instruction. How do you choose those people?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: There too a choice was made by CCMD under my watch. There's a choice of building faculty members. This is the approach a university would take, for instance. You recruit people with a PhD in a domain, and you're going to give that course for a long period of time. CCMD is not on that model. We have a very small team, and we retain on a contractual basis whatever expertise we require for a period of time. We go through tendering, and we want the best quality at the best price for the learners we serve. That means we're very agile. Let me give you an example. Treasury Board passed a policy on modern comptrollership. That was not part of the ongoing teaching we were doing. We control the design of the teaching methodology, the content, we bring public service experts, we go out and tender to get the capacity to deliver, and we deliver from coast to coast. Eventually, there will be another need. There could be a need to brief people and train people on Bill C-25, if and when the bill is passed. We'll do the same thing. We will control content, design, go and tender, retain services, deliver, serve the learner, and move on. That way, we're very agile. Many of our activities are on a contractual basis.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Could we use your services to train members of Parliament about Bill C-25 before we actually pass it?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: It would be a honour.

    The Chair: Well, of course, the question is, are they trainable?

    Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

    The Chair: But I don't expect you to comment on that, Madame Bourgon.

    Madam Bennett.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

    Put me on the roster for a second round, if you will?

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Epp.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was surprised that you weren't on the original list of witnesses. Is it something you didn't think you should do? I understood people who wanted to speak on the bill were supposed to call in, we didn't call people. Is that what happened?

    The Chair: There was a canvassing of those who wished to present on the bill.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Is there a reason you didn't want to present before?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: No, but I must say I was not aware that we were expected to propose. I'm used to the fact that we're invited, and I was simply assuming you were not at that section of the bill and it would come one day. As soon as I was invited, I think it's fair to say, I was glad to accept your invitation.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: But when we got to clause-by-clause, you weren't a bit surprised that you hadn't been asked to contribute?

·  (1310)  

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: I was surprised, but I felt it meant either you were totally delighted with everything in that section or you felt other sections of the bill deserved more of your time.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay.

    Following up on Mr. Epp's question, I guess we think about the life-long learning it takes to be a member of Parliament or staff of a member of Parliament or a new cabinet minister or maybe some of the managers within the House of Commons, whether that's Library of Parliament or other things. Managing e-mail, I don't know who does that, but I understand there are very expensive consultants we could all go and see. Are there things being taught at the CCMD that are transferable to other management within the parliamentary precinct?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Yes, I would say many. We have the law creating CCMD--I'm now going back into the past, because the new bill is not yet in place. The law I've been administering as president of CCMD clearly indicates that the mandate of the centre is to support the training, development, and learning needs of public service managers. I would not describe Canadian parliamentarians as public service managers.

    That being said, going back to the essence of your question, when we organize seminars, events, round tables, there is no doubt in my mind of the value of what we are providing. Not all, but many of those things would be of benefit to a parliamentarian who wishes to benefit from those services. Therefore, over the last couple of years I've started to provide an interpretation of my mandate that says, without denying my mandate, which is to serve public service managers, when there are activities that, at first glance, would be of benefit to parliamentarians--you probably saw some of our leaflets going to your office saying, we have this event--if any one of you feels like joining in, we would be honoured and greatly pleased to see you join the group. We have not been pushing or promoting or advertising, but we made a point of reaching you through your website or at your desk, whatever way was useful. We also make sure the leader of the House and leader of the Senate are aware of all the curriculum and all the activities when we produce a calendar. So that's the extent to which we've been going so far.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay. Thanks very much.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you.

    It's very nice to get to meet you today.

    I gather you are supportive of the section you participated in and you're quite enthusiastic about Bill C-25 and the direction we're heading. Do you have any other comments on anything we might want to make sure we pay particular attention to as we go through our clause-by-clause?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: I think the bill is well done. I read very carefully all the clauses pertaining to that portion of the bill. I cannot pretend that I did the same amount of work on the rest, but on that section I satisfied myself that what was needed was there. Some amendments that to you will sound marginal for the school are crucial, like revenue respending. The school operates on a cost-recovery basis, so the ability to respend revenue in more than one year was a significant adjustment. We were delighted to see that, for obvious reasons. We run a school, we have a school year, and we present our books according to the fiscal year, and that was creating frenzy and tension within the organization, so we were delighted to see that these changes were recognized.

    Administrative improvements that we requested were brought in, and we were pleased that they were considered seriously. There are no impediments in the bill to serving parliamentarians. I think your guidance would be useful on how far you would like us to go. The bill does not say “we should” or “we shall”, but there is no provision in the bill preventing us from providing services beyond public service and public servants. That's an improvement, I believe. There are no impediments in the bill to providing services to colleagues who are serving at the provincial level if they wish to make use of some of our courses, seminars, and so on, and I see that as an improvement. After all, we all share a common profession. So I was pleased that there was no barrier to learning in that sense.

    These things may sound small, but they are significant improvements in the bill presented to you.

·  (1315)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Bourgon, thank you for coming.

    You, as I recall, had the initiative on La Relève, and I'm wondering now, with the benefit of some hindsight, if you're happy with the progress on that. Are many of the recommendations you came up with in your group being implemented?

    I have a couple of specific areas that maybe you can comment on. There has been some suggestion that some of the departments, the deputy ministers, the departmental heads, or the agency, are taking a keen interest in human resource development issues, but in other cases the interest is minimal or has been delegated two or three levels down into the department or organization. That to me just seems to be wrongheaded, as in the public service people are really the whole machinery of government, if you like, the assets of the organization. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, whether you see any positive developments.

    Also, on the question of leadership, the general morale, and recognizing performance within the public service, do you see progress on some of those issues?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Thank you for remembering La Relève. If I could be allowed to reminisce a bit--you know, old public servants may reminisce from time to time--when I did my fifth report to Parliament, my last section was about the challenges ahead. I mentioned three on which we collectively, all deputy ministers, all ADMs, all managers, had to work. These were leadership development, learning and learning organization, and creating network organization, which I described as borderless, without the stovepipe. CCMD gave me the great chance of working on at least two of the three priorities I was setting for myself and for others at the time, leadership development and learning.

    Have we made progress? I spent hours analysing the results of the census of 1999 and the last one that was produced. I looked at all questions related to training, development, learning, support for career assistance by supervisors, understanding the challenges of the employees. When you map out the results on the key questions in that field in 1999 and 2002, there is a huge jump, not a small jump, like one percentage point, but a huge jump. That is comforting. Is the progress as fast as I would dream it to be? Never, but that's personality. Is it significant and worth mentioning and celebrating? Absolutely. I would gladly share those data with you, they are very striking.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Could you send it to us through the clerk?

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Okay.

    The second thing is that when I became president of CCMD, I created a committee of deputy ministers called the learning and development committee. This was 14 deputy ministers and associates. They've been meeting for the past three years every month for half a day with one topic on the agenda: how do we support learning? That is a huge level of commitment. Every year they've published a report on the work they've done, the issues they see, the progress they're making, and where they are going to work next. Again, these reports are available to you, and we'd gladly send you a copy.

    In the last year and a half we've created another network, which we call the Learning and Development Institute, a network of the 25 institutes I was talking about that are in departments, so that they work together and provide mutual help to each other. They've produced one annual report, and they are about to produce a second one.

    So all in all, looking back, I have to say this is good progress, this is good speed. Fast enough? Not quite, but as a manager who has been handling a fair share of management reform, you need to be both very patient and totally impatient. That's how you drive reforms.

·  (1320)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Good. Thank you.

    The Chair: Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I am very pleased but also extremely honoured to be able to speak to you, Madam Bourgon. You have an extraordinary reputation.

    I would like to make a comment about the structure of this new management centre. What strikes me is that it is not being seen as some isolated component within the machinery of government.

    You have explained that you give contracts to experts who work for the centre for a given number of hours or weeks, which I think is a very modern idea. This means that the content of the training will always be at the leading edge of practice and theory. For each type of training, you will be able to choose the person or persons who will give you exactly what you are looking for.

    I only wish to congratulate you because you have tried to create not a new institution with a new bureaucracy nor a new set of buildings but an institution made of people. You have really tried to build a tool that will be of service to its clientele by being able to adapt to its needs.

    That's all I wanted to say. I wanted to congratulate you.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Thank you, Madam Folco.

    Allow me to go further on this. I believe that the centre made the right choice, in the past, when it selected this model. I am not certain that we knew how good that choice would be but, four years later, I am quite convinced that this was the way to go.

    When the centre organized a conference on learning, last December, we were able to identify five international and national experts in the field and to have them come to the conference. Since we negotiate on behalf of the whole of the Public Service, we could do that. This allowed us not only to get them to come to this event but also to use the power of technology to broadcast the event in the workplace, in all the departments. In this way, a public servant in Yellowknife did not have to get on a plane, at prohibitive cost, to come to the event.

    I believe this method was extremely beneficial to the Public Service and I would encourage the school to continue in this way. We need to have in the school people who are real experts in training, especially for adults. However, we do not need any type of permanent faculty, like other institutions. I think this solution was very beneficial to the school.

    I thank you for your comments, Madam Folco.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

    I just want to follow up a little more on the delivery of these courses and how you hire the staff. It seems to me you have a bit of a dilemma. In most departments and in most specific settings the people most familiar with what new employees or people who are upwardly mobile, need to be taught and to learn would be the people in that department. That gives you the dilemma of contracting with people in the government to give services to the government. How do you handle that? It's a little administrative detail, but I'm curious about it.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: CCMD doesn't train on the mission of departments. If you were, for instance, the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Transport, you would be expected to provide training to your employees on the priorities of the Department of Transport, the legal mandate, and so on. We train on what I call common knowledge and common know-how. We train on the Westminster model of the parliamentary system we have, government accountability, ministerial responsibility, serving the public good ahead of the individual interest, the code of ethics and conduct expected of public servants. We train on all of those, and because we do, departments know they don't have to use their scarce resources to do that training over and above training about, say, the Department of Transport. We are the common service-provider on those domains that are common to all.

    Let's assume I want now to give a course on values and ethics. We, the school, will control the design, the content that must be taught, and once we've done that, we go to a tendering system through Public Works and Government Services Canada across the country, or abroad. Under NAFTA, we open up contracts wherever we need to, and we receive submissions from all sources, from all parts of society, from many domains. Then there is an assessment process, and we retain the best service provider for that event.

    We control the content definition, we contract a degree of the delivery, we control quality and the feedback from the learners, so if there is a problem, we can react very quickly. So we're not contracting inside, because the expertise we're looking for exists broadly in society.

·  (1325)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: That answers my question. I know you have the desire as well for people to really know their business. One of the frustrating things for us, as members of Parliament, is when an ordinary citizen goes to a department of the government and runs across a person there who doesn't know what they're doing, doesn't know what they're talking about, and then they phone us and say, hey, can you do something about this? The answer is no, because that's beyond our control. We don't hire and fire individual staff.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: If I may, this is an essential point. The school will be a great success provided that it remains focused and has a real domain of expertise. What we're building is a school of public administration. My strong advice to everyone is to resist the temptation to make it the school of last resort on any topic, so that it's master of none. You are in the process of creating for the first time a great school of public administration.

    Mr. Ken Epp: All right. Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Considering that overlap, how do you see the interaction with various schools of public administration, such as the Faculty of Public Administration in the University of Victoria? Another school you can look at is the Justice Institute of British Columbia, which happens to be in my riding, a school that brings together all kinds of different disciplines and trains everyone from police officers to ambulance supervisors, management people. Maybe you could comment on that.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: That's a key point as well. The CCMD has prepared a document approved by our board of governors. We have a board of governors chaired by the Clerk of the Privy Council, ex-officio Treasury Board, PSC; half of the members are DMs of large departments, the other half are external members, including the president of the Association of Universities and Colleges and representatives from the Association of Community Colleges. The strategy we have in place is known to every school of public administration in the country, I believe, and we have now implemented the first phase of that. It does matter for the school to be connected with all the other schools of public administration across the country. What we need now is to work better with community colleges. Because we started implementing the strategy with faculties in universities, we did not have the capacity to work as hard at a much larger network, which is community colleges, which is the next step now.

    The point is well taken. It is essential for the Canada school to be a partner and to be in strong relationships on teaching, but also on research in public administration. There is a need to support their PhD students, there is a need to send them people who can assist with the teaching, there is a need to harmonize. We're now in the process of seeking advance standing for our teaching from the various schools of public administration around the country. That is the best guarantee of a strong partnership.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: You can have a great design, but it falls down if you don't have resources. For instance, in career development there are going to be, say, 7 or 14 days every two years or whatever provided to middle managers. They are paid for by the employer to attend your facility, and you'll need to have sufficient resources to have those seats available, so that you're going to service a sufficient percentage, so that a middle manager would be able to go to your facility at least once every two or three years.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: That is a key point, not for the president of the school, not for the president of CCMD, but for Treasury Board. Even if we have a great school of public administration, we must ask if there barriers to access to learning, and a fee is a barrier for some people who cannot afford it. The question is how you resolve that. The President of the Treasury Board has been talking about two elements that would go some distance towards solving that problem. She has been talking about an orientation program for new employees, an orientation program for new managers, and a mandatory curriculum that would guarantee a number of days and presumably would be accessible on a basis that would not create additional barriers to learning. That's an issue for the Treasury Board, I would say.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

·  (1330)  

    The Chair: Thank you, members.

    There are another 20 questions we could ask you about the other parts of this bill, at least the parts on the Employment Act, the distribution of authorities, the role of the clerk as the head of the public service versus Treasury Board. I will constrain myself at this point, but as you are someone who's been in the chair, the committee might benefit from hearing of your experience in some respects. We asked you to come here today to speak about CCMD, because that is specifically the area of your responsibility, but I may want to have a further conversation with you on that issue. It's not that we have serious concerns about the structure of the current bill, it's just that it's difficult to understand how this model is an improvement over the old model on those broader structural issues. It seems it's a small incremental step, as opposed to really getting to that change everybody wants, which is a professional public service, well-supported, well-resourced, flexible, and fast, because those are also issues in today's world. It strikes me that by keeping this three-headed tool, we may not have achieved what we set out to achieve.

    I don't know whether feel it's your position, because you are a former clerk, to even offer a comment.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: I would reframe that slightly. We teach accountability to government, Parliament, and so on. You will understand easily that my point is going to be that you deserve as witnesses people who are in the position. People are not free agents, as public servants, speaking from positions they might have held in the past. So I speak comfortably on any aspect of the bill that is related to my domain of accountability and responsibility to the government and to you. That being said, there is nothing precluding anyone who has an interest in my personal views from past experience from having informal discussions.

    The Chair: Absolutely.

    Thank you very much. We wish you well in your international endeavours.

    Ms. Jocelyne Bourgon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Members, we are adjourned. We will reconvene at 3:30 in room 308.