Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 11, 1995

.1109

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Our witnesses today are from the Public Service Commission, Ms Amelita Armit, Executive Director, Corporate Management Branch, and Secretary to the Commission who will make the presentation. Ms Armit, I leave you the floor.

[English]

Ms Amelita Armit (Executive Director, Corporate Management Branch, and Secretary General, Public Service Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The commission's president, Ruth Hubbard, and Commissioner Ginette Stewart have asked me to convey to you and to the committee members their apologies for not being able to attend today due to previous, long-standing commitments.

.1110

I'm Amelita Armit, executive director of the corporate management branch and secretary general to the commission. Assisting me today are Michel Cardinal, executive director of the PSC staffing programs branch; Alan Latourelle, director general of finance and administration; and Fernand Lalonde, director general of our appeals and investigations branch.

They will assist me in discussing with you the Public Service Commission of Canada's outlook on its priorities and expenditures for the period 1995-96 to 1997-98.

[Translation]

This outlook is a component of the government's expenditure management system, a new approach to involve Parliament earlier and more explicitely in the planning and resource allocation exercise for departments.

The commission welcomes the committee's views on this and on our first outlook document. In light of your comments, we will adjust and improve our process to better meet the needs of Parliament as the new planning system is phased in.

[English]

First let me direct your attention to our budgetary projections. Over the planning period, that is, fiscal years 1995-96 to 1997-98, the Public Service Commission of Canada will reduce its budget by $25.4 million. This represents a decrease of 20% from its 1994-95 main estimates. Annex A of our outlook document shows at a macro level how we intend to achieve our financial targets.

The PSC's outlook document also reflects the program adjustment strategies we are adopting to conduct our business over that period. Our strategies are in line with those set out in part III of our main estimates for 1995-96, which were reviewed by this committee on April 25.

[Translation]

Our plans represent a triple challenge: we will carry out the mandate assigned to us by Parliament, we will achieve our reduction and we will undergo a profound renewal process.

[English]

First, we will remain very focused. Our current mission to ensure that the people of Canada are served by a highly competent public service that is non-partisan and representative of Canadian society, and our current mandate as a parliamentary agency responsible for the appointment of qualified persons to and within the public service and for delivering training and development programs, will continue to be the cornerstones of our work.

[Translation]

Secondly, we have carefully analyzed our proposed resource level and feel very confident that our budgetary reductions can be achieved in an orderly fashion, while fully respecting the dignity of our employees - those who will stay as well as those who will leave.

[English]

Third, and indeed the most demanding challenge, we plan to rethink and renew the way we discharge our mandate in the context of the profound changes that will alter the face of the public service over the next few years. The commission's renewal means that in addition to our ongoing activities in staffing, executive resourcing, appeals and investigations, and training, we plan to strengthen our capacity to anticipate issues likely to affect the public service and its people management, and as a result to constantly reposition the commission to serve better.

Our activities, systems and practices will be carefully examined, and where needed they will be realigned to meet the challenge of renewing the public service as it downsizes and restructures itself.

[Translation]

In closing, let me assure you that, throughout this changed process, merit and competence will remain at the heart of all our work.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Thank you very much for your excellent presentation Ms Armit. Mr. Asselin from the Bloc Quebecois will begin the first round of questions. Mr. Asselin.

.1115

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Ms Armit, do you think that the Public Service Commission can do as much quality work, as meticulously and as quickly as in the past, with 45,000 fewer people in the Public Service and a $25.4 million budget reduction?

Ms Armit: The commission is ready and willing to manage its human resources and all other resources to rise to that challenge. We can fulfill our mandate even with the cut. For example, the most important program in the short term is administering our priorities. We have a lot of activities in this program. There will be no cuts to this important program.

I will ask Michel Cardinal to respond on this issue.

Mr. Michel Cardinal (Executive Director, Staffing Program Branch, Public Service Commission): If I understand your question well, it concerns the 45,000 positions. These are planned cuts to the Public Service itself. Within the Public Service Commission, the budget will be reduced by roughly $25 million.

Over the first two years, we will ensure that we are in a position to support the transition initiative, that is to relocate people declare surplus in the public service who want to be relocated and to ensure that there are support, counselling and placement services on site, in all regions.

We are confident that even with the reductions we must make, we will be able to meet these needs.

Mr. Asselin: You are going to meet a minimum number of these needs. I cannot believe that the Public Service Commission will happily accept cuts amounting to $25.4 million accompanied by staff cuts in the Public Service. You mentioned cuts amounting to $25 million and 45,000 within the Public Service. You say that you accept that as civil servants. You have no other choice. For the past few years, there have been unnecessary or surplus employees, and the Liberal government had to order that the situation be cleaned up.

You know that there are people in the Public Service with several years of experience in various fields who will be declared surplus and who will be transferred to other jobs. As a result, you'll need to provide training through certain programs. Despite the cuts, has your budget for delivering training and development programs increased? What proportion of the work will be contracted out?

Ms Armit: Within the Public Service, we estimate that roughly 5% of our budget goes to delivering training and development programs. As regards the issue of contracting out, the Public Service Commission only uses 5% of its budget to contract out for computer services, because we don't have that expertise. We currently have a computerization program at the commission. This is the only one we have contracted out.

Mr. Asselin: I believe that the Public Service Commission will face an increased workload during these reductions, mainly with respect to staff. There will undoubtedly be people who will work more and you will have to set your priorities.

.1120

I would like to know how you have set your priorities. What are you going to deal with first?

Ms Armit: We have started considering the priorities of the commission.

This «Outlook» is the result of our thinking as concerns the priorities of the commission. For instance, the priorities we have identified are

[English]

the short-term transition mechanisms for the commission. That is the priority for us, because we know there will be people declared surplus and laid off. That is the priority.

We also know that as these things are happening we have to look not only at the present but to the future so that we have some adjustment and rejuvenation strategies, as we call them. At the same time, we know there is going to be a decrease in our resources, so the other priority we have identified is increased cooperation with others.

We have said in our document that for the next three years we see these as the three major priorities of the commission.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: Does the Public Service Commission intend to table a report and when do you expect to report to the Treasury Board and to the committee so that we can make sure that the $25.4 million reduction and the downsizing which have been imposed on you will be achievable?

Could you tell us what reduction in services or problems you are expecting as a result of that downsizing and those budgetary cuts?

[English]

Ms Armit: We will report in our annual report, in these outlook documents and in our estimates the impact of our reduction internally and how we will carry out the work in our priorities.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: Do you have an ethic committee that will analyze the pressures put by the government on the staff?

Ms Armit: Yes, this is a concern for the management committee. We have established an ad hoc committee with unions to study the expectations of employees and particularly the effects of the cuts.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare):Ms Armit, before we pass to Mr. Epp from the Reform Party, I would like to ask a question,

[Translation]

with the support of the committee.

[English]

Because of downsizing and because of new government operations, you had to establish a process to set priorities. There are four of them actually, if you take into account the loss of funds. Cutting is also a priority, especially since about 20%, I believe, of your purse has been cut. You have to look at that as a priority. It becomes an order you have to look at.

How did the process evolve to create this outlook on priorities and expenditures? By this I mean did you, on your own initiative, sit as an executive and discuss this? Did you have input from your managers? Did it come up from the grass roots, as some people would say? By ``grass roots'' I mean your managers, and not everyone in a phone booth across Canada.

Or did you get directives from Treasury Board? Did they get implicated in the problem? I use ``implicated'' as a general term; I don't mean it negatively. Or did the Clerk of the Privy Council call you over and say ``Okay, you're sitting and I'm presiding over this meeting, and I'm going to show you the way to set priorities''? How were these priorities set as a function and also as a directive from within or without?

.1125

Ms Armit: I think the best way to answer that is to say that a lot of this is a result of our program review process. We knew we were an independent agency and our president decided we wanted to do a review process on ourselves. Because we knew things were changing and we also knew there was going to be a major fiscal constraint on our work, we voluntarily subjected ourselves to a program review process.

As you may recall, there were six questions from the program review of the government. In the PSC we adapted those questions to ourselves. We didn't exactly say here are the six questions, let's ask the same six questions.

Let me give you an example. One of the six questions under the government's program review was on the role of government. Because of the nature of our service, we changed that to the role of a central agency and we asked ourselves very specific questions. Is this still needed? Is the Public Service Commission an important entity in this day and age? We did that. That's the first part of the process. We adapted the questions to our role.

The second thing we did was we established what we call ten task forces across the commission to look at various areas. We asked our employees - and by the way, we did ask volunteers - to tell us who was interested in working on this topic. We said let's look at the commission, let's look at the future, let's look at the environment. We did ten task forces.

The third thing we did was to review all the studies that had been done on government and on areas that affected the commission. There were the D'Avignon report, the Finkelman report, and Arnold Heeney's report on the usefulness of the Public Service Commission as an independent parliamentary agency. We looked at all those reports and asked ourselves as a commission whether a commission is still relevant in this day and age. We came to the conclusion that it was, based on our review of all of this.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): I thank you for that, but I would still like to come back to a nuance of my question. Did the Privy Council Office or Treasury Board intervene in any way during this process? Did they assist you in any way or give you directives?

Ms Armit: Not at all.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): So this is purely your own initiative, without directives or directions of any kind.

Ms Armit: Yes, with the exception of the format; they had guidelines on what should be included in an outlook document. We were apprised of the new requirements of parliamentary committees for information.

As you know, just like you, this is a very new process. I asked what kinds of information we should provide to the parliamentary committee and they actually gave department guidelines on what it should contain, such as key initiatives, issues, give your priorities. That's the guidance we got from them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): I'd like to pass now to Mr. Epp from the Reform Party.

Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to apologize for being a few minutes late. In our party there are only 52 of us and we all do four jobs, so it's a bit of a problem.

I would like to begin by asking you, with respect to the downsizing you're proposing, what criteria you use. How do you expect to manage downsizing?

Ms Armit: In the commission?

Mr. Epp: Yes.

Ms Armit: What we have done in meeting our fiscal targets is to identify the various areas where we feel we could streamline. We identified areas where we could use the help of other forms of delivery mechanisms and we also tried to identify the priorities.

The other thing I would like to emphasize in this downsizing and in the establishment of the priorities is that we tried as much as possible to focus our downsizing or cuts, if you may call it that, in areas that we feel are not our exclusive responsibilities. The core of our mandate is the responsibilities outlined in the Public Service Act and they are not really touched as such. We have tried to focus our attention on the non-exclusive responsibilities.

.1130

One example is training. We're not the only ones in the training field. That has been delegated to us, so we've looked at that. Another example is middle management programs. There are some cuts in that area, but those are not exclusive responsibilities. The heart of our mandate is the protection of merit, such as appeals and investigations and priority administration and staffing programs. The cuts are more a streamlining of administration.

Mr. Epp: When you work on achieving these cuts, how do you answer the questioner who says you're going to be reducing services? Clearly, if you're cutting you're expending fewer resources, which means fewer people to do the job. In some cases, some of the other resources that are needed to do the job will be cut. Will you be actually reducing service as far as the Canadian public is concerned?

Ms Armit: We will do our best to deliver our services with the resources we have now. In a sense, if I may say so, it's a hypothetical question at this point, but we are monitoring what the impact would be on the level and on the quality of service. To the best of our abilities we have made arrangements and identified areas that are most in need. In those areas we feel these services will be continued. In fact, in some areas, we have enhanced them. An example is career transition services, because we know there is a need for that. We're not only cutting; we've also done some reallocation of funds to areas most in need.

Mr. Epp: In the areas where you're cutting, there will definitely be a reduced service. Or are you suggesting, as you did previously, that if it's not your primary mandate, the receiving departments, etc., will pick this up, so there will be no real saving to the taxpayer in the end anyway? Am I correct in that?

Ms Armit: I wouldn't put it that way, sir, because, for example, we have major cuts in the streamlining of administration. That doesn't have a direct impact on the clients of the service. We also have some major cuts that result from using technology.

Yes, some people are impacted, but the services in some cases will be enhanced because we're using a new information system. I would say that it's a minimal impact on the client.

Mr. Epp: Instead of saying you had too many staff in some areas, you are simply telling us now that whereas in the old technology you needed this many people, with new technological advances you can get by with fewer.

Ms Armit: Yes, that's one of them.

Mr. Epp: That sounds very encouraging. I like that answer.

I'd like to go on and ask about your work with respect to other levels of government. You particularly mentioned training. I think that to a great degree training is in the domain of the provinces - at least we feel it ought to be - and you have probably, simply through evolution, gone into it over the years. Now you're actively pulling out. Is that one of your target areas?

Ms Armit: Not necessarily. For example, we know that some provinces are interested in the kind of training we provide. Instead of the provinces delivering it to their own people, they ask why we don't get together and deliver the same training program.

Mr. Epp: Can you give me an example of that?

Ms Armit: Yes, as a matter of fact, we have had a request from the Government of Alberta's personnel administration system to say that the training for middle management, for example, is an area they would be interested in. I understand that in their own personnel administration system they do provide training courses for middle management. Since we are in that area, we have a regional office in Alberta and we have a training office there. That's an example. Why don't we do this together and just have one course that's open to both federal and provincial officials?

.1135

Mr. Epp: Moving right along, I want to talk a bit about program review. We know that's been a thrust of the government for some time now. Looking ahead for the next three years, I would like to know whether the program review has had and will have an impact on your departmental expenditures.

Ms Armit: The program review has told us what our fiscal parameters will be for the next three years. They said here's your budget for the next three years. So what we have to do then is to look at the way we deliver services within that budget. That's what the program review did.

Mr. Epp: But the program review specifically says here are some questions. There were four or six questions.

Ms Armit: There were six questions.

Mr. Epp: You're to ask six questions about each program. Have you done that in your department? Is that work completed? What is the result of it? That's really what I'm asking.

Ms Armit: Yes, we did that in our department, adapting the six questions to us, and the result of the program review is here in the outlook document. We've said here is where we would cut and here are the priorities.

Mr. Epp: So you're suggesting there will be cuts, then?

Ms Armit: Yes, $25.4 million.

Mr. Epp: Okay. I have a question then with respect to the -

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Your eight minutes are up. Can you hold that one till the next round?

We will now go to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): Thank you.

I'd like to pick up on the questions pertaining to the program review and ask you whether in your self-examination you looked outside into the private sector for parallels of experience. You were saying that you did look at various commissions that reported on the public service, but did you actually examine it from the private sector point of view in any way?

Ms Armit: I would have to say not the private sector. We looked at other jurisdictions internationally, such as the public service commissions of Australia, New Zealand, and those countries that have done reform. We looked at what they have done to see if they would apply to the business we were in.

Mr. Bryden: You are confronting the problem of downsizing. Again, have you looked out into the corporate sector, the private sector, which is itself going through severe problems in terms of downsizing? Have you looked for advice or help or examples out there?

Ms Armit: I would say not directly, but we have tried to look at the practices that worked with them.

For example, we've heard this word about re-engineering. We've done a bit of that in our programs. We're using some private sector concepts for some of the things we do. I know that our Training and Development Canada program, for example, in trying to see how they could streamline their resources, had a re-engineering project. Then they found out what processes could be shortened and in the process whether they would be saving money if they went that way.

Mr. Bryden: So just to crystallize it, you're paying some attention to the private sector.

Ms Armit: Oh, yes, by all means.

Mr. Bryden: Okay. I wouldn't like to think you're working in a vacuum. There's always a problem when one does a self-examination; one forgets there are other viewpoints that one can tap.

I'm looking at your outlook on priorities and expenditures. I have a couple of questions that probably pertain more to the way you phrase things than to any lack of information. In the second paragraph you say:

What do you mean by that? The way you've phrased that would suggest to me that there's a problem with values and ethics in the public service.

Ms Armit: What we meant by that was that in the past we've always operated in a control mode, but in the evolving form of good management and best practices that we have seen around the world, both in the public and private sector, there is less of this control - -fewer rules and regulations - but more values that are being used.

.1140

For example, if we were to make a statement that the value of probity is pre-eminent, we would do that. We would try to encourage our people and build around it rather than saying to get into probity, you shall do one, two, three, four, five and six. It's not like that. It's an evolving thing. It's working on the values of the individual and how they mesh with the values of the organization and of the government. And it's getting people to understand that.

Mr. Bryden: That actually represents a fairly significant departure from previous practice. You're trying to encourage individuals to work as individuals with a value system, rather than work by regulation.

Ms Armit: That's the direction we are trying to move in.

Mr. Cardinal: If I may, under the act we have the power of delegation. We delegate to deputy heads in terms of running the staffing system in their departments to make appointments and what not. That approach is based fundamentally on values and principles.

The commission has certain expectations in terms of how the staffing should be carried out. We work with departments on what their needs are and we try to tailor the delegation authorities to their particular needs.

We also have the use of performance standards. We have expectations. We agree on standards; we agree on monitoring indicators.

So rather than have a rigid approach to the auditing of a particular staffing action that may have 37 steps, we're more interested in the impact on the department of how management has been managing the staffing system.

In addition to the monitoring indicators, we could use surveys of employees as we did when we developed this program. These surveys would give us an idea of how employees felt about the way staffing was being carried out in the public service.

So it is a values-based kind of approach to managing.

Mr. Bryden: I think it will have a very positive effect on morale. I take it that's the motive.

Mr. Cardinal: That's the basis for why we want to follow this particular program.

Mr. Bryden: I would like just to carry on, if I may. A little later you talk about one PSC priority being the support of the people dimension of transition. Now, you're going to have to explain that to me because just the phrase itself doesn't have much meaning to me. What do you mean by people dimension?

Mr. Cardinal: As you know, the Public Service Commission has been managing a priority administration system for 15 years. It's gone through a series of evolutions, and on average we have been able to place about 3,000 surplus employees in the public service on an annual basis. That's because we have at any one time - and I'm not talking about the future in terms of current reductions, but rather about the past - about 2,000 surplus people. I think our placement rate has been rather significant and we've had a fair amount of support from departments and from unions in how we managed it.

What we see now is 45,000 potential employees being declared surplus, although for public servants under the Public Service Employment Act, that number may be around 33,000. Then there is an early departure incentive and an early retirement incentive, and some people will take these because I don't know how you can adjust 35,000 people and find jobs for everybody in the public service. That's just not going to work, so there will have to be some adjustments.

But what we want to concentrate on is our ability to support the people who do want to stay and try to find positions for them in the public service. So we are enhancing our referral capacity, doing a better match between the qualifications of surplus individuals to the new jobs or the jobs that will be staying. We are also enhancing our counselling, ensuring that across the country in our regional offices we offer counselling services.

Fundamentally, we want to support the departments because, as you know, under the workforce adjustment directive it's the deputy ministers who have responsibility for managing workforce adjustment and supporting employees. But we see being there in the region, providing these kinds of support services, as an important role for the PSC.

So when we say that especially for the next couple of years we want to put emphasis on the people dimension of transition, this is fundamentally what we mean.

Mr. Bryden: That leads to my next question, which I think is related. You say you want to track the progress of employees with priority status -

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): According to the official timekeeper of this meeting, your time is up. It's 7 minutes and 59 seconds. Please keep that for the next round.

.1145

Mr. Bryden: Yes, I will, indeed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Thank you for your cooperation.

[Translation]

The next member to take the floor will be Mr. Asselin. Please continue your questioning. You were making a good presentation earlier.

Mr. Asselin: Things were rolling right along, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to start over.

After giving Mr. Epp, a reform Party member, a response with which he was fully satisfied, you said that the new equipment and new technology helped you do your work despite the staffing cuts. How long has the Public Service Commission had this new equipment and new technology?

Ms Armit: This technology is not complete, because it is the

[English]

integrated staffing system project. We just started this three years ago and it will be complete this year. As a result of introducing this system, where we combined 32 systems into one system, we will actually have some savings.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: We are concerned with the 45,000 people as well as with the quality and speed of service delivery. That worries us because the cuts will not only be made on Parliament Hill. There will be cuts throughout Canada, mainly Quebec and even in my constituency.

I wonder how you are going to do this ``clarification'' of personnel taking into account surplus employees as well as other criteria: merit, experience, bilingualism - there are certain positions that must be bilingual - , standards relating to natives, cultural communities, people with disabilities, men, women, etc. You are subject to certain legislative standards. How will that work? I'd like an explanation.

Mr. Cardinal: That questions is not easy to answer. Section 29 of the Public Service Employment Act confers on the deputy head the power to decide if there is discontinuance of a function, lack of work, or transfer of functions outside the Public Service. The administration, or deputy head, is responsible for deciding to abandon a given activity.

Obviously, the decision must take into account the fact that a service is to be provided in both official languages, but employment equity and other considerations are not taken into account in the decision making process, because the decisions must be objective. Are we going to offer this type of service? Will we reduce the number of positions here? If the answer is yes, it is yes.

However, the impact of this must be assessed. If there is a long term impact on designated groups or others, there are other mechanisms, whether they be special or long-term recruitment measures, to remedy the situation in cases where there are deficiencies or decline. As managers in the Public Service, we have several objectives to achieve.

At the commission, our role is to ensure this is done fairly, correctly and transparently. There is also an investigation mechanism whereby an employee who feels his rights have been infringed upon can say: I do not like the way I've been treated, and I feel there is a bias. The employee can ask the commission to investigate.

We want to ensure that the rights of people who are declared surplus are respected under the act and that they can obtain help through the services we make available to them, to the department and to the union.

Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one last question.

.1150

I would like to take advantage of your presence here to clarify certain issues that are often brought to the attention of members. It seems that there are public servants who hold jobs where one of the eligibility criteria is bilingualism, or the ability to speak both official languages. It seems that there are people in the Public Service who hold these positions and who are not able to speak both official languages. And in addition, they receive the bilingual bonus. Is this justified?

Mr. Cardinal: There are bilingual positions in the Public Service. As for people working in both official languages, some are entitled to a bonus. For example, managers are not entitled to the bilingual bonus. People must meet certain standards to be entitled to the bonus and they must maintain their skills.

In the past, if I remember correctly, there was a type of assessment every two years. When we tested people, in 94-95% of the cases, they succeeded in meeting the standard after two years. We determined that that wasn't very efficient. Once the individual has his position and is classified bilingual, he receives the bonus. We are no longer in a position to test them every two years or otherwise. We presume that the person still meets the requirements of the position. However, if the person does not meet the requirement, it's up to management to take the remedial measures necessary to ensure that the services are offered in both official languages.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): We will now move on to Mrs. Chamberlain.

[English]

Mrs. Chamberlain (Guelph - Wellington): Merci.

I wanted to go back to what you spoke about earlier related to amalgamating federal and provincial training. I wanted to know if you have any other specific areas that you're going to amalgamate where you know amalgamation is going to be of benefit.

Ms Armit: First of all, we're not thinking of amalgamation. They are just joint ventures.

Another example that the provinces seem to be very interested in is our very well-known personnel psychology centre. They have gained quite a reputation, for example, for their testing services for competency standards. We use that in the public service. Some of the provinces are asking if, instead of either buying those services out of the private sector or developing their own testing services, they could use ours. After all, this particular test for competency, for example, is for the public service; it's not a private sector job or occupation. That's another example.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Is there a willingness among all provinces to work together in this fashion?

Ms Armit: Three have expressed interest and we're still talking to them about exactly what areas they would be interested in.

Mrs. Chamberlain: I also wanted to ask you about page 6 of the outlook document where you talk about appeals and investigations. You talk about examining options focused on prevention and on proved dispute settlements. This seems like a really good idea to me. Tell me how you're going to do that. What are you going to do differently?

Ms Armit: I will ask our director general of appeals.

Mr. Fernand Lalonde (Director General, Appeals and Investigations Branch, Public Service Commission): Thank you. What we're exploring with all federal government departments at this point is the area of mediation. We're trying to resolve issues, problems and disputes before they tend to polarize and before they force us into a very long, protracted administrative investigation.

For example, the new Treasury Board policy on harassment, modified in December, puts a lot of emphasis on the front end work to try to get people to work out their problems with some assistance from a professional mediator. We've developed our staff in that line as well and we're offering those kinds of services.

Mrs. Chamberlain: So are you suggesting having policies in place will make the difference in long, protracted disputes?

Mr. Lalonde: Yes. Policies are certainly encouraging front-end resolution of problems and disputes.

Mrs. Chamberlain: And that would be it, would it, in that area? This is obviously a fairly serious and significant area. If you can do the things you're saying you can here, that's wonderful.

Mr. Lalonde: We've already started. We're now doing quite a number of mediations and offering these kinds of services with some good success.

.1155

Mrs. Chamberlain: Is there individual counselling for this, or do you just work with bargaining units?

Mr. Lalonde: We're working with individuals and their managers, for example, on certain cases. Someone may come to us with a complaint of personal harassment or abuse of authority and we'll offer mediation services to the parties.

The option, of course, is for us to investigate. We talk to the parties and bring them together. We offer to see how we can resolve their problems and get the interests out on the table. What are the issues? How can they now work together to solve this problem and create a better workplace? That's what we're doing now.

Mrs. Chamberlain: You've never had anybody to perform that function before. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Lalonde: We didn't quite promote that, I must admit. We did some of that function when the opportunity arose, but we didn't do it formally. Now we are formally offering this. As a matter of fact, just recently I sent out a letter to directors of personnel and the unions offering this on a formal basis. But we've been experimenting with this over the last four and five months.

Mrs. Chamberlain: That's great. I think you'll find it will probably be a help to you. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Thank you, Madam Chamberlain.

[Translation]

The response to Mrs. Chamberlain's question was full of nuances. I think that Mrs. Chamberlain was asking if people were assigned to this kind of position.

Mr. Lalonde: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): If there were none before, are there any now?

Mr. Lalonde: One person was officially appointed mediator, but people could always resolve the problem through an investigation. We always offer that during the investigation, but when we intervened at that time, it was often a little too late. Now we offer it very early on in the process. We offer mediation services, and we have people who are trained and experienced in offering them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): As Director General of Appeals and Investigations, you say in your report that there will be an increase in the number of investigations, appeals and complaints. Why and what kind of complaints?

Mr. Lalonde: With all of the cuts, we foresee an increase in complaints concerning the reverse order of merit process. If you have 20 people in a unit and you want to reduce the number to 10, you will have to use a reverse order of merit process to make the cuts. People who are declared surplus are always entitled to request that the commission review the process to determine whether or not it was based on merit. With 45,000 positions to be cut, we foresee and increase in this kind of complaint.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): To make this crystal clear, coudl you explain to the members here what you mean by "reverse order of merit" during this period marked by budget reductions, downsizing and even the cancellation of programs?

Mr. Lalonde: As I explained earlier, if you have 20 people in a unit and your budget is cut by 30%, you'll have to cut 10 people. To determine who will have to leave the Public Service, who will be declared surplus, we evaluate the 20 people and the 10 least qualified, the ones with the least merit, will be declared surplus. This is the reverse order of merit process. Appointments and departures due to downsizing the Public Service are based on merit.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Is performance a factor?

Mr. Lalonde: Absolutely.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Okay. We are now going to move over to the opposition.

[English]

Mr. Epp is the next speaker, according to the official machine here. Voilà.

Mr. Epp: Merci, monsieur le président. I think that's the first French I've spoken in my life.

I would like to say as the unofficial timer of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that so far you still don't hold a candle to using as much time as our usual chairman of the committee in question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): That's a very nice compliment.

Mr. Epp: It is indeed.

.1200

First, there's a new name for the initiative. It's called the special measures initiatives program. Why was the name changed and who decided to change it?

Mr. Lalonde: This was a joint decision. First of all, it's a Treasury Board program that the commission manages through delegation. Under the old system, the special measures program was fundamentally for recruitment activities. After four or five years we did an evaluation and realized that while we could recruit people, we had problems with retention, the work environment, managing diversity, changing of attitudes, etc.

We felt that rather than putting all of the funds toward recruitment and special efforts, most of them should be devoted to the workplace to train managers and create a better work environment. That's why we changed it to special measures initiatives program, with the emphasis on the initiatives and innovations in terms of creating a better climate for public servants to work in.

Mr. Epp: On page 27 of your estimates it indicates the number of participants. The number projected in 1995-96, just a very quick estimate, looks to me to be less than 400. I haven't actually added it up. So we have about 400 people and yet the cost of your special measures initiatives program is in the neighbourhood of $10 million. I feel this is somewhat disproportionate to the number of people who are being served by this. I'd like you to explain.

Mr. Lalonde: As figure 7 says, that is the participant statistical overview. These programs, which are still part of the special measures initiatives program, are used for recruitment and training purposes only; bringing people in. As a matter of fact, for 1995-96 the total money being spent on this program is in the order of $15 million.

If you'll bear with me two minutes, I'll just go through quickly and show how that money is allocated.

For external recruitment, what you see here projected is about $1 million. The special measures initiatives fund is about $8 million and this is on cost-sharing with departments.

We have a job accommodation fund in the order of $600,000 to help disabled employees or people joining the public service so they either have facilities of entry or can work as disabled employees.

We have $700,000 for our developmental programs participants. We have about $566,000 for our executive programs career counselling. Labour market analysis, which is our monitoring in terms of employment equity groups, is in the order of $300,000.

Then the administration is about $3.7 million because we have people across the country who not only do recruitment for special programs, but also participate in these initiatives with departments across the country.

So when we look at these developmental or recruitment programs, they only tell a small story of our employment equity initiatives program.

Mr. Epp: I'm puzzled. I really am. I guess I will have to ask you sometime, maybe in the summer during my vacation, to find some examples of where you're spending these millions of dollars so I can see how they are being used.

It seems to me, having been in the educational environment myself and having dealt over the years with a number of people in these groups, that the necessity for spending huge amounts of additional dollars just isn't there. We used to just integrate them into our regular program.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): I thought, Mr. Epp, I would send you my official timekeeper. Then we could compare notes.

Mr. Epp: Actually we agree right to the second.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Thank you very much. I thought for a minute there you might quote Thomas Aquinas, so I thought I'd show you the -

Mr. Epp: No. I'm a mathematician. I'll leave those quotations to the arts groups.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): That's good.

Mr. Cardinal: Under the special measures initiatives fund we have several categories. We have what we call developmental, managing diversity, recruitment, retention, summer students, and training. In the long term the public service may achieve a certain level of representation and participation so these special measures, especially on the recruitment side, may no longer be necessary.

.1205

The question is the work environment, the whole notion of managing a diverse workforce. Especially if we understand the demographics of future years, I don't think this is just going to happen by itself. We in the public service want to ensure we can manage the diversity in the work environment because we want a public service that is representative of the society it serves.

Mr. Epp: As a low-level manager, when I used to hire women the cost didn't go up. It really didn't. When I hired an aboriginal the cost didn't go up. When I had a little business going and I hired some French-speaking people who also spoke English, my costs didn't go up.

Frankly, I really have problems with this. The only place where I can see the need for additional expense is when physical changes have to be made for people who are physically disabled and sometimes, I suppose, mentally. The problem generally is that you don't need to spend millions of dollars on these things in order to achieve them. You just do it. You don't need to throw a bunch of money at these things.

Mr. Bryden: I'm interested in the mechanics of cut-backs and the subsequent investigation when there are complaints. When an area needs cut-backs, who does the assessment? Is it the local managers? When there are complaints, where do the complaints come from? Is it up to the employees who have been cut back to complain? Do they complain to you and do you get those complaints? What is the actual mechanism of investigation? What do you do when you receive complaints?

Ms Armit: First, the decision as to which areas will be cut back and what employees at what levels depends on the manager. The manager makes the decisions.

Employees have the right to complain to us. I would like Fern to explain the complaint process.

Mr. Lalonde: Certainly if their complaints are about the way they were assessed and the process used to identify those people who are declared surplus, they could come to us to lay complaints with us. They would identify their allegations and we would assist them in doing that. We would then ask the department to respond to the statement of allegations. Based on that information, we would then investigate the issues that were outstanding.

Mr. Bryden: What does the investigation consist of? Does it consist of interviews with the manager and interviews with the employees? How does one come to a judgment?

Mr. Lalonde: It includes both of those. Of course, if there is a selection committee, we would certainly interview the members of the selection board. We would look at files and the whole process file. If necessary, we would look at the files of individual employees who are part of that process, including performance assessments and all of that.

Mr. Bryden: How do you broadcast this? Do employees know they have this option? I have had complaints brought to me as an MP when obviously they ought to have been going directly to you. They don't even need to go through my stage. These are people who have a union and their union is not advising them either. Can I ask whether you have anything in place to inform these surplus employees that they have this option? If not, can I recommend it?

Mr. Lalonde: That is normally included in a letter they receive from their departments. We also have brochures. We've been giving information sessions across the country on all of this. The unions are certainly aware of it. I guess that's pretty well it. You could always refer them to us.

.1210

Mr. Bryden: Coming back to the language of the outlook document - and I am an arts person as opposed to a mathematician, so I'm very interested in the meaning of words - on the first page, in the fifth paragraph, you talk about ``the progress of employees with priority status''. I need to know what you mean by priority status. Priority could mean very low or very high. It is a very ambiguous term to be used in that context, and perhaps you could explain what you mean.

Mr. Cardinal: There are two kinds of priorities in the public service under the Public Service Employment Act.

There are what we call statutory priorities. Those are leaves of absence, ministers' staff, and lay-offs, people who in fact have left the public service and have one-year priority for lay off.

The regulatory priorities are the ones called surplus. They're fundamentally related to the workforce adjustment, so you have the surplus. You also have employees who become disabled. The commission has the authority to create a priority, so there are other priorities. We have spousal relocation. Another priority is what we call reinstatement, where an individual who has been declared surplus at a certain level took a position at a lower level but maintained salary protection. That is called a reinstatement priority. In other words, if there is another opportunity to find that individual a job at his former level, we would try to do so. There are different kinds of priorities.

Mr. Bryden: No wonder I didn't understand. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Thank you very much. We will now hear from Mr. Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin: I would like Mr. Lalonde to explain a little further. He did very well earlier when he said that in a group of 30 people affected by budget cuts, 10 could see their position disappear. The 20 remaining employees would first of all have been evaluated and been given higher marks by the Committee. The 10 others would be declared surplus.

Who are the members of these evaluation committees and does the Public Service Commission concern itself with the qualifications of the members of these committees? Are they impartial? Are they chosen outside the Public Service?

Does an employee declared surplus have the right to appeal the evaluation? If the employee is not satisfied, is there some recourse? The employee could prove on appeal that the decision is a settlement of accounts resulting from earlier events. The employee could also argue that he or she was a victim of discrimination or of an improper evaluation or the victim of favouritism on the part of a member of the committee.

Mr. Lalonde: Those are typical allegations. The evaluation committee is composed of local managers, line supervisors and a member of the personnel service who helps the employee in interpreting the legislation and preparing the tests.

Here is how things often unfold: The individual's performance evaluation is examined and often the employee is given tests or interviewed. The process can be quite elaborate. Those who feel that they have been ill served by the process or poorly evaluated for various reasons come to us.

Mr. Asselin: That would be an excellent way of getting rid of someone you don't like.

Mr. Lalonde: It has happened. In such cases, we intervene.

Mr. Asselin: That is all.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Asselin. Since no government member wishes to put questions, I will use their five minutes to put one myself.

This question will concern mainly

[English]

staffing rejuvenation. You have as one of your priorities to rejuvenate the public service as a government body, not as the Public Service Commission. Some people out there may be wondering how you can do that if you're cutting 45,000 jobs, according to the way the media approach the situation. How is this done?

.1215

Before you start answering, I'd like to tell you that on May 10, The Ottawa Citizen published an article by Kathryn May stating:

[Translation]

That is not just anybody. It is the Auditor General.

[English]

This is a multiple question, and in order to assist you I will ask the clerk to bring you the article. It's highlighted so that you can perhaps share the answer.

Ms Armit: That article certainly has caught our attention, too. But just on the general topic of rejuvenation of the public service, I think our president had mentioned when she appeared before the committee that we have to look at the long term. We need a competent public service. If these cuts and downsizings are prolonged, say, for 10 years, we feel as a commission that it would not be in the best interests of the public if you did not bring in new blood.

For that reason, we are still using what we call targeted recruitment for certain areas. We still have, for example, the management trainee program, which is for young people who can come in and have some training and then become managers. We are an aging population. There's a big trench in the public service that's not going to be here within the next 10 years. We have to make sure there are people who are very good and highly qualified who can serve the public interest to do that. So there will be a bit of what we call targeted recruitment.

On the issue of ``one size fits all'', that is really a concern for us because we know that in this day and age there are different ways of delivering services. Departments are even telling themselves they are a very specialized area and they want to do certain things their own way. That is, by the way, the reason we've mentioned in our outlook that we are going to have a review of the staffing system. That is one of our -

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): How long is that going to take?

Ms Armit: We are working right now with Treasury Board and with our other central agencies and departments. We'll commence this year to review that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Your statements are very commendable. But if you go out there in the universities, if you are a student and you have this mind-set that if you work for the government they're only taking people on term, how can you really make a profession out of the public service? I might as well try to work for private industry; there may be job options in private industry. Therefore, you may be picking up only what is left of the best.

How do you work at that and bring back that term employment problem that I see?

Ms Armit: I'd like to make a comment and then turn it over to Michel Cardinal, because they do the recruitment program.

I do want to make the statement that a lot of our young people are still very interested in joining the public service. There's a lot of interest. I believe there's something in the public service that's different from the public sector. The opportunities and the challenges are different.

We try also to show them that one of the advantages - if I may use that phrase - is that you are going to be involved in something very interesting, something very challenging, and something that contributes directly to the public good. That's one of our points in encouraging people coming into the public service. And there are people who are responding to this.

I don't necessarily accept that we are going to get the dregs, if I may use that term. There are people who are very good and very talented who want to join the public service. The best example I can give of that is -

.1220

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): As term employees?

Mr. Cardinal: There are indeterminates as well. For instance, in 1993-94 -

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Are you hiring at that level of indeterminate?

Mr. Cardinal: Yes, we hired around 2,400 indeterminate employees through the public service in 1993-94. This year, as of December 1994, we were at about 974.

There's no doubt that in this period there is less recruitment, but we are still hiring indeterminate employees, and these are mostly from our post-secondary recruitment campaigns. Usually our corporate programs, such as the management trainee program, the accelerated economist program, financial officer development programs.... Then in our regular post-secondary campaigns we may go out and recruit for economists or computer scientists or auditors where there is a demand for these professional groups.

Interestingly enough, the management trainee program, which is a master's level program, attracted about 1,300 to 1,500 people to this program in the last three or four years and the quality is very good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): That's more good news for the rejuvenation priority.

I now pass on to Mr. Epp. You have your two and a half minutes. Go ahead.

Mr. Epp: I just have a clarification on time. That doesn't mean it's my last two and a half minutes for this session, does it?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): No.

Mr. Epp: Okay, good.

I would like to have you look at page 8 of your estimates. I notice that in your estimates you indicate a drop of around $10 million from the forecast.

When I look at your document on the outlook on priorities and expenditures, if I look at your last year's main estimates and do a comparison, there is a bit of a problem there in the 1995-96 numbers in that the numbers aren't the same, which rather surprises me. If I look at the 1994-95 estimates and the 1994-95 forecast, I see differences here ranging all the way from a slight underpayment in training programs - that's the way it looks, although I'm not sure about that because I don't know where these numbers are - to a high of 6% over expenditure on appeals and investigations.

My question has to do with this. I know it's impossible to budget dead on the money. The larger the organization, the more difficult that becomes; I'm aware of that. But it seems to me that governments can actually achieve a cut in expenditure every year by this process. In other words, they can announce $10 million in cuts here, $15 million here and all over the place simply by estimating low, spending what needs to be spent, and cutting what was actually spent back to a number that is somewhat near or slightly above the estimates of the previous year. So while it looks like there are continual cuts, in fact what you get is an increase from year to year.

I would just like to know how we can ever answer that question and get some real cuts in expenditures from year to year instead of just having them in the forecasts.

Ms Armit: We would report in the estimates what happens to those expenditures. In terms of absolute cuts, because of our budget the cuts will be varied. Now, within a year there may be some internal reallocation within the programs because of what has happened, but we will never exceed the budget we have. We may underspend, but if you're talking between programs, yes, we do some internal reallocations if something happens in the middle of the year.

For example, if we forecast a cut in training programs by x%, say 10%, but within the year there might be a need that we haven't foreseen, we will try to meet that need by looking at the other programs that are underspending.

Mr. Epp: But this year you're over by about $4 million in total.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Mr. Epp, excuse me. Your two and a half minutes are up. However, I believe you may be the only person left who would like to ask questions. If you want to continue -

Mr. Epp: You can come back to me afterwards and give the others a chance.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): No, no. With the committee's permission, we will let Mr. Epp continue for a couple more minutes.

Mr. Epp: Oh, I'd appreciate that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): You're certainly giving us terrific input. After that, we'll conclude the meeting.

Mr. Epp: Okay, great. Thank you.

.1225

What I'm saying is that you're announcing to the world that you are forecasting a cut from last year of $10 million. Actually, it's a cut of only $6 million from last year's estimates. It appears to me you spent about $4 million over your estimates from last year. Where did it come from? You say you didn't over-expend your estimates.

Mr. Alan Latourelle (Director General, Corporate Management Branch, Finance and Administration Directorate, Public Service Commission of Canada): One thing to recognize also is that part of the forecast includes a portion that's referred to as ``carry-forward''. For example, you're allowed to carry forward from one year to the other up to 5% of your initial main estimates. If you don't spend that, let's say in our case the budget is...if you round it off to $100 million, $5 million per year could be transferred from one year to the other. So the change in our forecast, for example, that's greater than - because it's greater now than the main estimates initially - is mostly because of the carry-forward.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): For the record, I would like to make sure Alan Latourelle is recognized as the finance administrator.

Mr. Epp: Can you then also briefly tell me the source of the discrepancy in the training programs in your 1995-96 estimates? If you look at the sheet you gave us, or this booklet providing an outlook on priorities, annex A....

Mr. Latourelle: The difference between the two essentially is that on page 8 all the employee benefits are not included. In the document we provided you, the outlook document, we've allocated all the employee benefits by program. That's the reason why there is a difference between the two of them.

I think the best example is if you go to page 4 on the main estimates. It's going to be very clear. You'll see the contributions to the employee benefits plan for 1995-96 are $10.8 million. You'll see we had program expenditures, then the contributions to the employee benefits plan. On page 8 you are looking strictly at program expenditures without the contribution to the employee benefits plan. In the outlook, we've included both of them together.

Mr. Epp: Okay, we'll have a further look at that.

I have another question about recruitment. External recruitment is necessary, and I agree with what our honourable chairman said. You want to have a renewal that means bringing in youth. Again, I've been an employer in several different areas, and it's those young university graduates that bring vitality and excitement to your organization. Yet at the same time we're cutting back 45,000 civil service employees.

I know from things I've read that the normal rate of attrition is around 5%. Correct me if I'm wrong. Normally, through retirement and through seeking other employment, etc., it's around 5%. I would like you to describe these numbers to me and how you can possibly justify spending around $10 million a year for external recruitment.

Mr. Cardinal: We don't do only indeterminate recruitment. We also do term recruitment. As a matter of fact, during this period of staffing controls there's always an ongoing need to bring people in on a short-term basis. We have many appointments of a short-term nature; less than six months, less than three months. As a matter of fact, there's also an authority in the act for casual hirings, which are not members of the public service.

So when we look at our total recruitment function, fundamentally the commission is involved in bringing people to the public service both indeterminately and on a term basis. I was looking at my numbers a while ago. We would have a total population, total terms to indeterminate, of 1,690. These are through competitive processes once terms become indeterminates.

.1230

There are also many terms who are hired for short terms, as I said a while ago, in the public service, and that does involve a fair amount of administration. People, for instance, in the administration support group go to the regional offices of the commission and want to be included in the inventory; we refer them to managers. There's a fair amount of administration work that goes on as well. So our recruitment function is not only devoted to indeterminate or corporate programs.

Mr. Epp: So for your staffing requirements, you actually make an attempt to separate out the functions of your staff with respect to external recruitment versus your other functions.

Mr. Cardinal: There are some programs that we run corporately. For instance, the management trainee program is run from Ottawa because it's a corporate program. There is some regional input, of a sort of secondary nature, in terms of support.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Mr. Cardinal, we now have to adjourn this meeting. I must congratulate your group and thank the witnesses from the Public Service Commission. Your input has been greatly appreciated. Your task is not an easy one and I want to congratulate you and to thank you very much for your presentation.

The meeting is adjourned.

;