OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 20, 2003

0905

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

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

0910

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

0915

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

0920

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

0925

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Forseth

0930

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Forseth

0935

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Sheila Fraser

0940

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Sheila Fraser

0945

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Szabo

0950

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

0955

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

1000

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Ms. Sheila Fraser

1005

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

1025

1030

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth

1035

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Dyane Adam

1040

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1045

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

1050

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Dyane Adam

1055

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Dyane Adam

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Dyane Adam

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

1100

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Dyane Adam

1105

Mr. Gilbert Langelier (Director, Special Investigations, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Gilbert Langelier

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Gilbert Langelier

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Gilbert Langelier

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

1110

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 020

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

The order of the day concerns Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We have before us this morning, from the Office of the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, Maria Barrados, and Kathryn Elliott. Welcome.

Before we move to the witnesses, Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like the committee to move more quickly. Yesterday, I mentioned this to the clerk, and I would ask the committee to instruct her to get in touch with our future witnesses.

I would like to avoid having other witnesses come in to tell us that the bill is perfect and that they have nothing to add to it. That is a waste of the committee's time. I do not want to waste half my time, particularly in light of the fact that yesterday, if I remember correctly, there were four committee meetings, which, in itself, does not bother me. However, I think it would be more useful to hear from people who, even though they think that the bill is good, would like it to be improved and have some amendments to suggest. That would speed up our work considerably.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to request unanimously that the clerk get in touch with each of our remaining witnesses and to tell those who have nothing to add or change in the bill that we have already heard such evidence from a number of witnesses.

I think we are wasting time, and have, particularly yesterday. I even left toward the end, because I had heard more than enough.

[English]

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

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): I must apologize, I had to go back to the riding yesterday, so I was unable to be here and I didn't have a chance to hear the witnesses, but if I'm not mistaken, there was a list of witnesses agreed to by this committee, witnesses representing various backgrounds. This is a bill that deals with the public service, so you're going to get the management side and you're going to get the labour side. I'm sure the honourable member's party also submitted a list of witnesses. We're still early in the process of hearing witnesses. To hear that the overall intent and the essence of the bill are good, what is wrong with that? We did have witnesses the other day who criticized part of the bill. So I'm just wondering if the same comments would be in order if we had witness after witness only criticizing the bill.

It's early in the process, we will continue, and if this continues to be a concern, we can deal with it. Interviewing the witnesses ahead of time and sifting out what we'd like them to say and what we wouldn't like them to say I really think defeats what we're trying to accomplish here.

¿ (0910)

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

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

I've been at this business for 10 years, and like everybody at the table here, I've been through this process before. I have to somewhat agree with Mr. Lanctôt about the productivity of the time of the committee and the kind of testimony we receive. But I have to also agree with Mr. Tirabassi that we cannot predetermine the witnesses. We've tried to respond to the witnesses who've expressed a direct concern that they want to give testimony.

However, in view of the testimony we heard yesterday, I did say to our clerk that perhaps we could renotify the witnesses, asking them to focus their comments a bit into a form that would be more useful for this committee. One of the presenters had a brief in a form that was very helpful because they met with me and I told them what would be productive at committee and what would not. Specifically, what I'm looking for is that they make very brief general comments, and then they take a specific section; if they're complaining about it, they have to make the effort to suggest how that section should be amended. There's a great difference between having a general criticism of the bill and complaining that it doesn't do this and it doesn't do that and actually trying to get to the intellectual process of prescribing how to write it. If we raise a problem, the witnesses who are expert in the field should also provide some of the solutions. Then the committee can take the variety of suggested amendments and maybe incorporate them.

So providing specific suggestions as to how the bill should be amended to improve it should be the focus of the witnesses, and perhaps we could send another note to our potential witnesses that this is the kind of testimony we're looking for.

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

Mr. Szabo, and then Madam Sgro.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I agree with Mr. Lanctôt and the sentiments expressed by Mr. Forseth. This has a lot to do with productivity, and I'm hopeful we can, as we deal with any prospective witnesses, be more judicious in our instructions to them. I don't think it helps us to sit here and watch them read, for half of the time, prepared statements. We should rather have them put their focus on the issues they feel are the most important to bring to our attention, with the prospect that there may be changes. This is what the purpose of this is, and they should know it. Witnesses can do what they want, but I think we have the opportunity in the future to consider whether or not they will be invited back, if they're not going to be constructive or contributing to the process. So I think we could move on, and I think the ball is still is in our court to encourage the witnesses to help us do a better job.

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

Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): How many witnesses do we have booked on this bill ahead of us?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): There are 12, plus four who have not been approved by the committee yet--we need to deal with that.

¿ (0915)

Ms. Judy Sgro: We're all under such tight schedules, and we do want this bill to get moved forward, so that we can get into clause-by-clause. I think a lot of what Mr. Lanctôt was saying is important. It's great to hear people say good things about it, and that's very encouraging, but at the same time, I think we need to be very focused and say, what is it you have a problem with and how can we consider improving it? That way we can move on to the next one and ensure that this bill does get moved forward and into clause-by-clause.

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

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'd like to refer you to the Auditor General's statement this morning, item 13:

Debate about what should and should not be included in the legislative framework is healthy. However, a fundamental question must be asked when considering the proposal: to what extent do the changes enhance human resource management?

Why don't we just send that out?

Ms. Judy Sgro: Exactly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I was hoping we could use the Auditor General's testimony this morning as an example.

I've heard the committee, and I do appreciate the fact that Mr. Lanctôt brought this up. There are obviously issues on both sides of the table. Whether the comments witnesses make are positive or negative, I think the point is that they need to be very specific about the bill. If there is a positive aspect to the bill, point to it in the bill, explain why it's positive and why it's required in bill. If it is not a positive aspect, explain the remedy you would suggest to deal with the fact that it's not as clear or as well written as you would have hoped. Are we okay with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to thank my colleagues. After all, committees are supposed to be productive. I have nothing against hearing from witnesses whose view is that the bill is good. However, I think that since three, four or five witnesses have already said that, that is enough. I am not talking about filtering the evidence, but rather about checking whether possible witnesses want to raise points that could improve the situation.

My intention is merely to get us to proceed more quickly. We have 16 witnesses left, and we want to hear from the 12 who want to make improvement or changes to the bill. It is not about screening witnesses. We have already heard from those whose view was that the bill is very good and is based on a sound principle. We have already heard that.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lanctôt, I think you've made your point, and the clerk has heard what has been said. She will endeavour to contact the witnesses who will be coming before the committee to ensure that they are much more specific and are contributing to the work of the committee, rather than just making general comments on whether they like or dislike the bill. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, that was my suggestion, that the clerk draft a letter. In view of the comments today, I'd like to have a look at it. Let's contact these witnesses to drive the process forward.

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

While we're on the issue of witnesses, I would ask the committee whether they would agree to have these four additional witnesses added to the list: the External Advisory Group on Embracing Change, the International Personnel Management Association of Canada, the Professional Employees Network, and l'École nationale d'administrationpublique à Gatineau. And yesterday we suggested the possibility of having the Public Service Commission come back. Are we all in agreement that we extend an invitation to these?

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I'm not very familiar with them, and if they want to appear, I don't want to turn them down, but could we at least panel them, so that we can direct our questions to those who may touch our focus a little closer? With regard to the PSC, I think we indicated that we might want to have them back, and I would like to have them back.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): On their own?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. That's agreed.

Welcome, Ms. Fraser, Ms. Barrados, and Ms. Elliott. Ms. Fraser, you probably have some opening remarks that will be very detailed and specific, I'm sure, after hearing the committee members suggest witnesses should be very detailed and specific.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today to discuss Bill C-25. Given the discussion that has just occurred, I have a very short statement, and afterwards the committee may particularly wish to discuss with us the role of the Public Service Commission and its audit role that was intended in the legislation. That might be an area we could focus on.

In our reports we have stated that good government depends on the performance of public servants. How they are recruited, trained, managed, and treated is of great importance to an effective public service. The government's personnel costs represent a significant investment that has to be managed well.

Several significant legislative changes are being proposed to update and modernize a legislative framework that is over 30 years old. Our past audit work has drawn attention to the importance of modernizing legislation, and my comments today are drawn from previous findings that are likely to be of relevance to you. The attached annex summarizes the key points that have been raised in our office's recent reports.

In chapter 9 of our April 2000 report we noted that the current human resources management regime was unduly complex and outdated. We found that flaws in the system prompt managers to work around what they view as an overwhelmingly cumbersome process, and we found that an alternative system of short-term hiring has emerged as the main hiring practice. Clearly, the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the many human resources management players needed to be clarified. We also identified the importance of a strong accountability system that includes improved oversight and reporting, and in 2001 the Standing Committee on Public Accounts agreed with our findings.

[Translation]

Bill C-25 proposes to clarify the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders. Treasury Board's role would be significantly enhanced through changes to the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act. Furthermore, additional powers would be transferred from the Public Service Commission to Treasury Board.

The proposals in C-25 would change the staffing regime. The new Public Service Employment Act proposes a preamble that outlines key concepts and values for the public service. The changes considered would also clarify the definition of merit; establish a new staffing recourse process, as well as bring changes to the system governing political activities. The proposed changes to the staffing regime are consistent with our previous reports and our findings from recruitment audits.

The commission would refocus on its core mandate as it relates to the staffing system, and the protection of merit and non-partisanship. Its operational role would therefore be diminished. Deputy heads would be clearly responsible in law for many aspects of human resources management.

However, in areas such as staffing, the government would use a delegated oversight model. The practical aspect of accountability for these new powers would have to be worked out.

I would like to comment on oversight and reporting about human resources management. We are pleased to see that the Treasury Board's expanded role would include reporting to Parliament on human resource management matters. The Public Service Commission would also report annually to Parliament on employee appointments, its audits and investigations, and the political activities of employees.

The Commission would continue to oversee staffing. However, given that its operational role would be diminished, it is not clear whether it would continue to play a role in public-service-wide recruitment, and language training and testing.

Mr. Chairman, we see the proposals as an improvement to the existing system. We believe that if this legislation is passed, it will contribute to reforming human resources management. We are also pleased to see that the new act calls for a legislative review after seven years.

¿ (0925)

[English]

Debate about what should and should not be included in the legislative framework is healthy. However, a fundamental question, which Mr. Mahoney referred to earlier, must be asked when considering the proposal: to what extent do the changes enhance human resources management? The legislative proposal is only one component of the modernization of human resources practices. Other initiatives the government has outlined will have to be put in place to ensure that the regime is effective. Given the significance of the proposed changes, the transition must be well managed and well supported. For example, training must be provided and expectations clarified. Parliament must ensure that the changes are supported through program reviews and the reallocation of funds that was recently announced. Sufficient resources must be provided if this initiative is to succeed. Momentum must be maintained over the long run. This will require leadership from senior public servants, as well as Parliament's commitment to oversee the implementation of modernization initiatives.

My office intends to follow this situation closely and report on the progress to Parliament, and we hope that this committee will continue to monitor progress in this area.

Mr. Chair, that concludes our opening remarks. We would be pleased to respond to the committee's questions.

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

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

In view of your comments, let's get directly to the definition of merit as outlined in the bill. Does the configuration in the legislation adequately respond to the concerns you've outlined? There has been some speculation and conversation in the mass media about it. It certainly has been brought up by a number of witnesses. I'm still looking for evidence on that particular matter, because I take it that this is the first time merit is really going to be written down in law, rather than just citing court cases, advances through various contests in legal circles. From your perspective, have we got it there? To give you a hint as to where I'm going with this, it appears that the definition of merit is like a limbo bar at this point: we've got a base level, rather than a desire to seek excellence and find the best. That seems to be missing from the definition.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We are satisfied with the definition of merit that is in the bill. The current system, where you have to hire the best-qualified person, has resulted in a very cumbersome, very long process, which I think has actually frustrated good staffing practice in the government. The way the act proposes to define it allows more flexibility, but it does require candidates to meet standards and qualifications, it doesn't mean those standards are lowered in any way. We think it is also good that it allows consideration of current and longer-term needs that may be specific to a department or agency; it will give departments more ability, I think, to hire people with a longer-term view, rather than using short-term hiring practices. One of the major concerns we've had is the very large percentage of hiring that has been short-term, 90% term employment, and the government needs to change that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You introduce an interesting concept there. Are we responding by watering down the principle, because we have an administrative problem over here that's circumventing ideal principles of merit? If we have an administrative problem, should there not be an administrative answer? The ridiculous example is, there are too many bank robberies, so make bank robberies legal, and then we won't have the problem. I'm trying to illustrate the point that an administrative problem has created behaviour that circumvents principles. If you can't get a person hired in a timely manner and you can't deal with appeals properly, you start just watering down the principle, instead of responding to the administrative difficulty you have.

¿ (0930)

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We don't believe the principles have been watered down. Obviously, a lot of this will deal with the implementation, but I think there's a fundamental principle that when people hire, they want to have good people to do the work. There's a lot of work that has to be done. They do want to have qualified people who are able to deliver for them. The way the current system is, where you're required to find the best based on a series of criteria, there's been a lot of jurisprudence that has made it a very legalistic process and extremely cumbersome. This has probably, if I could venture an opinion, discouraged some of the better people from staying in the process, because it takes so long to get through it. So I think this process that has been proposed is a significant improvement over the current one.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So we have this tradition of the concept of merit, which I would assume came from the British Home Office ideas that developed around the turn of the century, where they wanted to have a person hired for their skills and abilities rather than their political affiliation or their family relationship to the King. If there was a change in government in England, the Catholics were in, the Catholics were out, all these vast changes that we know in our history, and so they developed a more professional approach. We still have provincial governments in this country that seem to breed an expectation that there's going to be a big change in the bureaucracy when their friends get in power. We're still struggling with that in Canada. That's the first part of an independent professional public service.

The other part is rules and regulations and law proscribing political activity of employees. That's also a section in the bill. I'm wondering if you could address that aspect, because I think the bill is probably not defensible in a charter challenge with the way it's limiting in a top-down way, in a very controlling way, political activity and violating the political rights of employees. It appears the agenda has been driven along by the courts, because people have challenged the situation, the regime. So now the government has presented another regime in the bill, and in my view, in comparison to what various provinces have struggled with on the same issue, this current proscription is still somewhat behind the times. Can you address your comments to the limits on political activity?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think Mr. Forseth is really getting into the whole question of patronage.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We believe very strongly you must have an impartial, professional public service. That is critical to the quality of the public service. The text in the bill says:

An employee may engage in any political activity so long as it does not impair, or is not perceived as impairing, the employee's ability to perform his or her duties in a politically impartial manner.

I believe there is a provision that if an employee wishes, for instance, to run for political office, they would have to go on leave, because that could be viewed, obviously, as affecting their impartiality. We have no difficulties with the bill as it is being proposed.

Mr. Paul Forseth: To help you a bit, my concern is, first, that permission has to be obtained. There's nothing in the bill that says permission will not be unreasonably denied. If permission is denied, the employee asking for the permission has no place to go, an independent body, even the PSC itself, to at least have some independent person review whether that permission was unreasonably withheld.

Second, permission has to be obtained to even get a nomination, let alone run in an election, and I find that particularly distressing. I was nominated a year in advance, and no one knew when the 1993 election was going to be. If I had been a federal employee, I would have had to take leave of absence, according to the way I read the bill, up to a year in advance, waiting for some time in the future when the election would be, with no guarantee that I was going to be elected. That could be a great discouragement for some of our brightest and best across the country to ever enter federal politics. Fortunately, I was under a provincial regime where I could say to my employer, I'm giving you notice that I'm going to get involved in politics, and I will negotiate with you when that start date will be. I just had to invoke it, because it was my right to be involved in political stuff, and they could see there was no conflict. There was a guarantee of five years leave, and they would actually hold a position somewhere in the general level I was leaving, so that within five years I would be put back in the public service, because the organization was large enough to accept that. When I look at that regime in comparison with this top-down, controlling regime, I find it is still not advancing political rights far enough.

¿ (0935)

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'm afraid we haven't really looked at the issue in any great detail, so I really can't give much comment on Mr. Forseth's questions. I would just go back to the fundamental principle that impartiality has to be maintained. How that is best done could obviously be a discussion for this committee.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

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

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Of course, the main objective is to improve the public service.

One of the preambles refers to the principle of improving relations between employees and managers. Do you not think that there is a potential problem, particularly as regards staffing and recruitment? Any effort to improve the process and find better candidates must obviously take into account the merit principle. However, in attempting to restore a certain balance, an imbalance has been created on the other side. In other words, the objective starting point backed by certain criteria ultimately becomes a subjective criterion.

You say that we now have some case law and objective criteria. In my opinion, the lack of prescribed criteria could in itself give rise to some subjectivity. If people are not favourites of the boss, they may have problems. Moreover, in the case of appointments, the problems could be even more serious than in the past.

How can you reconcile these two possibilities? The concept of merit has been broadened so much. How can we improve the bill knowing that this fear will only grow once public servants become aware of the situation?

The idea is to bring in highly competent employees from the outside, but once they understand the implications of this subjectivity, they may be even less interested in working for the public service. They will be interested in such a career initially, because they will have been selected for their position. However, how can they be sure that in the context of their professional careers, subjectivity will not prevail? The fact is that unions will not be involved in establishing the new criteria on classification or standards.

Personally, I see this as a problem, and I would like to hear your comments on the matter, less as a public servant than as the Auditor General.

In addition to making the process much more subjective, the bill gives employees only one ground for complaint—abuse of authority. You know as well as I do how difficult it is to prove abuse of authority.

Formerly, employees could challenge decisions on a number of other grounds. But the decision becomes quite simple, if the only remaining grounds are abuse of authority and a failure to have one's performance assessed in the official language of one's choice. Apart from these two factors, the grounds on which complainants may challenge an appointment are very restricted. Individuals who are not appointed must be able to prove that there has been an abuse of authority! What do you think about that?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: That is quite a question.

I would start by saying that we did not really do any work on the issue of labour relations as such. Consequently, I am really not in a position to comment on the relationship between the government and the unions, for example, and the role that they should play. I think others have studied this and are better informed on the issue than I.

As regards the merit principle and staffing, let me give you a brief explanation about the current situation. One of our audits showed that there were 70,000 rules in place to manage the public service and its human resources. It can take between 12 and 18 months to recruit someone, and 90% of current staffing at the moment is for term positions. As a result, I really have to wonder whether highly competent candidates will leave a position elsewhere to take part in a process that may take up to 18 months or whether they will agree to accept a three or six-month term contract. I very much doubt that we can recruit high-quality candidates under these conditions.

As regards staffing as well, there's always some subjectivity involved. There can be objective criteria such as education, experience, and so on, but ultimately, there is always a subjective element involved when someone is hired. There will still be criteria in place. The proposed process does not eliminate all the objective criteria, but it is a simpler process. I think the reference to case law has to do mainly with the fact that the process had become very unwieldy and complicated.

As I read it, the bill provides for two procedures. There is the whole issue of reporting to Parliament, of course. The bill requires Treasury Board to provide information to Parliament in the form of a report. There is also the audit function of the Public Service Commission, whose role it is to ensure that staffing is carried out properly, in accordance with established standards and criteria.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But if the criteria are not established, on what will the Public Service Commission base its decision? When the members of the Public Service Commission change, will the criteria change as well?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: From our understanding, Treasury Board, as the employer, will be establishing the criteria, and the Public Service Commission will check that the criteria have been put in place and are complied with. If I could draw a comparison with my role, it would be this: it is not my role to comment on policies adopted by the government. However, it is my role to determine whether these policies have been implemented properly and to see how they are working. The Public Service Commission plays somewhat the same role with respect to Treasury Board, the employer.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I see. Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): About 30 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: All right. I will not pursue this point in that case. I would just like to talk about a subject that is not mentioned anywhere—the whole issue of harassment. The survey that was done showed that one public servant in five is a victim of harassment. That is huge. There is no provision about harassment in the bill. The only answer we got from the minister is that this is an administrative policy. It has already been in place for some time, but has produced no concrete results. One public servant in five is a very high number in a public service made up of I don't know how many thousands of people.

What do you think about the fact that the bill makes no provision on this? Should we be demanding that this be included in the current bill? We should not forget that it took 30 years to make some significant changes to this legislation. Will we have to wait another 30 years to deal with this problem, which is causing a great deal of conflict at the moment?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think the answer to the question lies in the review of the legislation after seven years. A tremendous amount has already gone into the drafting of this bill. Changing legislation after 30 years has not been easy and has required a considerable amount of work on the part of the people involved. I think it would be too much to ask them to review all aspects of the bill. Sometimes, we accomplish very little if we ask for a complete review. Consequently, it may be better to proceed gradually and to determine whether issues such as harassment deserve reconsideration. A study should be carried out over the seven years, and the right time to make changes would be when the act comes up for its seven-year review.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses.

The Public Service Commission was before us yesterday, and one of the points that was made in a recommendation for change was that their annual reporting process may not be sufficient or is not sufficient, I'm not quite sure which. They are suggesting that they have expanded authorization to report to Parliament on a more frequent basis if there are matters that are so important that they cannot wait until their annual report. Do you have a comment on that?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We are aware of that recommendation, and we would support it. It is important that if they note something of significance, there be a mechanism whereby they can provide reports other than just their annual report. In fact, in the legislation of the Auditor General, in addition to the four reports we can produce a year, there is a provision that if there is something urgent, we can produce a special report. So I think there should be some sort of mechanism like that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I tend to think that's a good idea. Their credibility is on the line any time they make reports, so I'm more than happy to allow them to share their views with parliamentarians.

A second point they made was that the relationship currently with Parliament and parliamentarians should be improved substantially. It appears that they are calling out for an improved dialogue with parliamentarians. There are many ways to interact with parliamentarians, and I'm asking for your words of wisdom on whether there are venues or periods. Should there be some restrictions, or should this be a concerted effort to send out the signal to encourage continued communication through any forum that is available?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: If I look at our experience and the very special relationship we have with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I think it is really critical for an officer of Parliament to have a standing committee that reviews the reports, that does the follow-ups of the reports, and that can establish a good relationship with that officer. I think it is important for the Public Service Commission to have a committee they will attend on a frequent basis. How we define frequent is open to question, but they would have a home, if you will, a committee that will review, for instance, their plans and priorities, their performance report, and will deal with their reports and their recommendations. I think that's really a critical part of the work we do as officers of Parliament, that we have a direct link to a committee and that committee takes the work seriously.

Mr. Paul Szabo: There is a final area on which I'd like to ask for your thoughts. The concept of culture change has been presented to us as an objective with regard to this legislation. I think the experience with the short-term hiring is an example of how deep the current culture is rooted and why it is so important for you to follow up and monitor the progress and report back when the progress is there. From looking, as an example, at the Public Service Commission's ability to audit, it struck me as a foreign concept for management. Management, by its very definition, means setting targets, reviewing performance, making sure procedures are well and properly documented, we engage and retain the best possible people, and we report on management performance, hoping people will learn from their mistakes, etc. To enshrine, as it were, in legislation that they're going to have the right to audit makes them something different, I would say, management without a culture. There is the sense that if I can have these things put in legislation, it will legitimize my activities, which I believe in a culture change should be really part of the job and not require legislation. I'm trying to understand why it's necessary to legislate that someone would have the ability to audit management decisions, whether it be on merit, hiring, firing, or whatever. Should not the culture really embrace the principle that managers are required to manage, use the tools that are generally available for management within their purview, do the best job possible, and be accountable for their actions?

¿ (0950)

Ms. Sheila Fraser: To the latter question I would say yes. I think this legislation is very much about letting managers manage. It is also very much changing the accountabilities, in particular, between the Public Service Commission and the managers in government. The role of the Public Service Commission is going to be very different from what it is now. The Public Service Commission wears two hats now. It is very involved in the day-to-day operations and management, and at the same time it has an audit role, and there is a conflict in that. For instance, if we were doing all the bookkeeping in government and at the same time auditing the financial statements, it just wouldn't work. We think this legislation helps to clarify the roles and responsibilities, which is one of the big issues we have noted in the many audits we have done in human resources management. The roles and responsibilities were not clear. Now, even if it's a delegated model, there certainly is an intention that the deputy ministers will manage the human resources and will be accountable for their actions in that. That does not mean you don't need an audit function. You need to have an audit function to ensure that the system is working as intended, and that is the role that has been given to the Public Service Commission.

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

I'm going to ask the indulgence of committee members. I think we will go slightly over our time. I've got Monsieur Lanctôt, I'm sure Mr. Forseth has a second round, and then I have Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Tirabassi. We may just go over ten minutes or so, and I would ask you to keep it to five.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to an important issue, and a major omission in our view. I'm referring to protection for whistle-blowers, particularly in the context of our work as parliamentarians. This issue affects us a great deal, of course, because we work closely with witnesses who may or could come to see us, and could answer questions.

It has happened on a number of occasions that witnesses refused to come, or, even if they did come, refused to testify and to give us the information we needed to do a good job as parliamentarians, as public advocates, to bring certain issues to light or rather to understand them and even provide figures to back them up. These witnesses have told us very often that they could not provide the information, even though we knew they had it.

So I would repeat that there is no provision whatsoever about this. In my opinion, these are not just ordinary employees, they are employees who are there to... Partisanship does not come into play only as regards appointments. It may also mean that people are forced to hide things, because they cannot say them or because they are afraid of reprisals. It is their job to manage public funds. They have the same responsibility as we do, but in a different capacity. They work in this place, and sometimes more often than a number of the members around the table.

They must be protected, but for that, they must do their work properly in order to give the public accountability and transparency. It is not just the minister, but also all the officials concerned who must give us the information we need. We have trouble getting this information, and there is no provision in the bill to protect these people. What will happen is that we will have even more difficulty, and we will fall back into all these partisan considerations. As I said, it is not just about appointments. We are going to have difficulty doing our job, and nothing will change.

When we talk about a culture change, that is what we need, a culture change, to make people accountable for the way in which public funds are spent. That is the starting point, but if there is no such provision, how can we expect to bring about a culture change within the public service?

¿ (0955)

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree that we need to promote a culture in which employees can blow the whistle or mention improper actions without fear of reprisals. I think that is essential, particularly within a public service. But I think there may be a parallel between this issue and the issue of harassment: the act could not cover everything.

I believe there's also a new position, that has been created recently—the public service integrity officer. I think it would be advisable to review the efficiency of the officer's work and determine how much progress has been made, and see whether he thinks, following this study, that legislation is required. Personally, I see legislation as the last step in a continuum of solutions to this problem. It would probably be preferable to determine whether other approaches might make culture change possible before actually introducing whistle-blowing legislation. However, I do think this is clearly an issue that must be reviewed at the moment.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you very much.

Ms. Fraser, you said you didn't really have comments on the labour relations aspects of this, but there's a key issue we've heard about from some of the unions. On one hand, they say they don't want to co-manage the public service, but on the other hand, they want better accountability for decisions to dismiss or to suspend or to discipline in some way. While I think you must have a good, healthy dialogue between labour and management, I think there's a risk of taking away certain rights of people if you go too far in the area of arbitrating management decisions. I use the example of the implementation of workers' compensation plans throughout the provinces in Canada. One of the quid pro quos of doing that, providing benefits etc., was to give up the right to sue. That has worked successfully, I think, by and large. There are people who would argue that, but it's worked. Do you see a danger here that if we go too far down that road, arbitration decisions would infringe upon people's legal rights and their ability to go to the next step in the court system and have recourse, which they currently have?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I really don't feel qualified to answer that question. We have done no work in this area, and I would hate to venture into something that is as obviously delicate as this.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let me ask you, then, if you're intending to follow the development of this new legislation and the new relationships and the culture change, if that might be one of the areas you would look at.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Very much so. We will be particularly looking at the implementation of this. Will the momentum be sustained? Are the resources going to be given? Will hiring practices, for instance, change? What will be the effects of this in the future?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

On the issue of short-term hiring, it seems to me that it's short-term hiring versus long-term costs. That's probably one of the reasons that this philosophy has taken place. In the private sector you see many companies hiring on contract for specific terms, in many ways to the detriment of the workers, because they don't get the benefits that would normally come with full employment. How do we reconcile this problem, particularly in government, where not too many years ago we were consistently running in the red every year, running up huge deficits? We still see that in some of our provincial governments, yet we have a responsibility to deliver certain services. To be non-partisan, which somewhat goes against my nature, I would say we have been blessed in the past ten years with a pretty strong economy, and for the foreseeable future it seems we will be. While we can take credit etc., which we all do in our political machinations, the reality is that things are cooking pretty good. It happens to be on our watch, as the Liberal government. Do we run the risk, though, if we change things to eliminate the flexibility for short-term hiring, of putting the government back into a position of deficits?

À (1000)

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We raised two concerns. One was that there was short-term hiring for what were essentially long-term positions, so terms kept getting renewed. They were, in fact, people who were being hired with a view to a longer-term position, not short-term positions in reality, not specific to a contract. I think there are probably many reasons for that. One is the complexity of the systems. I think you are right that some of it could be funding issues; when departments only have funding for programs a year in advance, they are more hesitant to commit themselves to longer-term hiring.

But there's a real dilemma, if you will, facing the public service, in that there is a very large number of retirements being forecast on the horizon. A large number of people will be leaving the public service, and we have to be building the capacity to replace them. In fact, the senior people leaving and the level below them are all about the same age, so there's going to be quite an exodus in the next few years. We must have the mechanism to bring people in more efficiently and into longer-term positions, because I don't believe someone will leave a full-time position elsewhere to come to a short-term contract.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: There is something of an atmosphere, I think, in the public, that is often exacerbated by the witch hunt mentality that can occur on given issues. The HRDC file that was supposedly a $1 billion boondoggle turned out not to be anything remotely close to that. What I saw happening in the civil service was that people went underground, not wanting to deal with this. Offices stopped responding to MPs on all sides, and there was an atmosphere of fear, because every day you ran a risk; if you approved a program in Atlantic Canada, which you might normally do under your mandate, you could wind up on the front page of the Globe and Mail or, heaven forbid, as part of question period. My experience is that our civil service, federally, provincially, and municipally--and I've served at all three levels--is a fantastic group of men and women who are really dedicated and take a bum wrap, frankly, with some of the portrayals of what they do.

We talk about culture change, so how do we successfully change that culture throughout the country ?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I agree that we have very dedicated loyal people in the public service, and we should be thankful in this country for the quality of the public service we do have. If we talk about the HRDC situation and others, there's a balance to be made between service and control. I think the pendulum swung too far one way. We noted in one of our reports, in a follow-up, that the control pendulum went too far the other way, and people were becoming over-cautious, asking for too many documents. Hopefully, the pendulum will come back. It comes to managing the risks and managing competing issues. If I can just make a little plug, in our next report we have a whole chapter and discussion about risk management, so we can perhaps have that discussion after the April report.

À (1005)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think the Auditor General can have a huge impact on how we affect people's views on our civil service. I look forward to that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is with regard to measuring improvements as we go through this entire exercise. How would you measure improved efficiencies? In a more typical department program or activity you have a goal, you have an objective, there's a process to go through, and there's a cost associated with it. So you have some comparable elements that are very specific. When you come back, as you mentioned, to report on the progress of the public service, what will you compare to measure, hopefully, improved management-employee relations and satisfaction against the public feeling that they're now better served, which is really what we hope to also achieve in the end? Do you not agree that presents unique challenges? What will we be able to hang our hat on at the end of this?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: First, we would expect management, in this case the Treasury Board Secretariat as employer, to have an action plan and targets as to how this will be implemented; they will be tracking what is happening and will know if the changes they are promoting are actually occurring. So we would look to them to see what kind of evaluation they are doing of that.

In many modernization initiatives--and we've raised this in the last year with the comptrollership initiative and some of the other ones--there are often great declarations of intention, but when it comes to the specific plan, what is actually going to be done, who's going to do it, at what cost, and for when, this is lacking. So we will be looking to see if there is that kind of detailed plan to implement this initiative. Then we would probably take specific areas, such as staffing, which we have done in the past. We would go back to see whether staffing practices have improved in departments, whether managers feel it is easier to do, that they have more flexibility, and that it isoccurring appropriately.

We've done audits in the past on the quality of service. We did one about five or six years ago and another one about two years, and there had been great improvement in the quality of service. So that is also an issue we could go back to in the future. We take specific departments in those cases and look at things like response time, how they deal with the lines at kiosks, and various other things. So we would audit various aspects of that.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Before we close, I'll just take one last opportunity for you to give evidence here specifically about your role of independent oversight in relation to government in its broadest sense. Is there anything in this legislation that is problematic for you in your role? Is there something that perhaps is missing in the bill that you would have seen as helping, facilitating, or enhancing the performance of your functions?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: No, there's nothing that affects us per se negatively in this bill. We were actually pleased to see that it deals with many of the concerns we've had in the past. As to our status as employer, and we are obviously affected by this, there are measures that touch our staffing, and in fact, certain flexibilities we had been asking government for have been introduced in here. We are actually quite supportive of this legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): In your opening comments you said something about the possibility of your particular office and role being used as an example of how the PSC should be. Can you comment there? Are there some deficits that need to be fixed in the legislation to enhance the role of PSC, as you see it?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: No. It's more to do with the way the PSC will operate in the future as it assumes more of an audit role, rather than an operational role. I can see that it will probably have to change some of its practices, some of its methods. We would be glad to help the PSC in that. There are two issues you might want to consider. One is the reporting, which Mr. Szabo brought up earlier, the ability of the PSC to report more than once a year. There's also the question of funding, which is of concern to many officers of Parliament, and perhaps my colleague who is following me will also comment on that. Currently, funding for officers of Parliament goes through the Treasury Board Secretariat, which is a bit of a conflictual relationship. We would prefer to see Parliament or a committee or a subcommittee of Parliament deal with funding of officers of Parliament, much as in the U.K. model. We have had very long and protracted discussions with Treasury Board Secretariat over funding, and I would hope that could be resolved, and perhaps the Public Service Commission would provide an opportunity to do something on that issue.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): It seems we have a great advantage in that we have long-established practice and experience with the role of the Auditor General, and that advice and experience and institutional memory can be helpful to the emerging roles of the PSC. Because I see on page 5 of their submission:

In order to fulfil its responsibilities to protect merit, the PSC recommends that Parliament provide it with the authority to order any corrective action it considers appropriate as a result of an audit, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the public service.

That's an interesting recommendation. You may not want to give evidence today about that, but you might have a look at their submission and provide us with some advice by letter or whatever.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I would just comment briefly that we would not support that. With the kind of role we play, we do not have an ability to order people to correct things. Managers should manage and be accountable for what they have done. The audit function has to remain independent from that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Okay. With that advice, thank you very much. We will suspend.

À (1010)

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Again, the order of the day is looking at Bill C-25, specifically hearing evidence related to the process of the bill.

We have, from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages, Gérard Finn, special advisor, Gilbert Langelier, director, Special Investigations Branch, and Pascale Giguère, legal advisor. We're pleased to hear your comments, then we'll enter into some questions. Please begin.

[Translation]

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment today on Bill C-25 on the modernization of the public service.

Introducing legislative reform to modernize the Public Service of Canada was indeed a major challenge for the government. The future will enable us to assess the results of this initiative. In the meantime, I think it is important to pay tribute to the determination of the President of Treasury Board, who has succeeded, with the help of many public servants, in introducing this major piece of legislation.

The public service is a key institution in our Canadian political system. It acts as a crucial link between Parliament, the government and the Canadian people through the multitude of services it provides that contribute to the well-being of Canadians. The public service must reflect the values of the society that it serves. The legislation on which it is based must give practical expression to these values. Linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. The government clearly stated this fact in the speeches from the Throne in 2001 and 2002, when it said that linguistic duality is at the heart of our collective identity. The government has just reaffirmed this in presenting its action plan for official languages under the evocative title of New Momentum for Canada's Linguistic Duality. One of the three focal points of the plan emphasizes the need to create a public service that is exemplary in its approach to official languages. Such a change will only be possible if the culture of the public service changes in regard to language.

In my view, the plan to modernize the public service must take this important reality into account. I have therefore examined the plan in light of the proposals that I submitted to the government on this reform. My proposals are summarized in a public document called Towards a Modern and Bilingual Public Service.

The government has chosen to take into account some important aspects relating to official languages in the bill that is before us and to deal with some other policies in the context of possible modifications to the statutory regulations or related policies.

I will deal first with the improvements that I would like to see to the current bill. I will then suggest some directions that the government should take in possibly modifying the statutory regulations and related policies. These are also a very important way to achieve the objective of a modern, bilingual public service.

In regard to the current bill on the new Public Service Employment Act, I suggest three changes. First, an addition to the preamble to the Public Service Employment Act in order to take linguistic duality into account; second, the addition of a clause in this same act regarding the public service staffing tribunal, and last, proposals on including language training in the planned reform.

[English]

First, on the inclusion of linguistic duality in the preamble to the Public Service Employment Act, I was pleased to see in the third paragraph of the preamble that the concept of a public service able to serve the public in their official language of choice is mentioned, thereby demonstrating the importance the government attaches to this aspect of the Official Languages Act. However, the Official Languages Act is not limited to this. It is also intended to make the public service a workplace where employees from both linguistic groups can use their language and where both language groups have equal opportunities to obtain employment. The public service must also promote the recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society and enhance the vitality and support the development of official language communities. In my view, the concept of linguistic duality incorporates all these aspects of the act quite well. It should, therefore, be added to the third paragraph in the preamble. This concept would also complement the Canadian diversity characteristics in this paragraph quite nicely. I believe linguistic duality helps to pave the way for the acceptance of diversity. These are two complementary aspects of the Canadian reality, and they should be tied together in the preamble. The third paragraph could therefore be modified to read as follows:

Canada will also continue to gain from a public service that strives for excellence, that embodies linguistic duality while being representative of Canada's diversity, and that is able to serve the public with integrity and in their official language of choice.

[Translation]

As to the second recommendation, relating to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, the bill proposes a major change by transferring the responsibility for examining employees' complaints about internal appointments from the Public Service Commission to a new independent tribunal. I noted with interest that failure to respect the right to be evaluated in the language of one's choice in a selection process will be included in the potential ground for complaints before the new tribunal.

The provisions of the Official Languages Act set out that when handling a complaint, the tribunal must ensure that it respects the right of the complainant to use either English or French. However, in order to ensure that complainants can be heard directly by the members of the tribunal without the assistance of an interpreter, it is important to strengthen the language provisions in the bill to ensure that there is always a sufficient bilingual capacity among the members of the tribunal.

Our 1999 study on federal tribunals showed that the language abilities of potential tribunal members were not sufficiently taken into account in the process, when verifying whether those members would be able to hear cases in the language of the appellants. One recommendation in our study was that the governor in council, who is responsible for these appointments, should assume responsibility in this regard. However, the situation has not changed very much, and I feel that the current exercise provides us with an excellent opportunity to give concrete expression to this accountability.

I therefore suggest adding a clause to this effect to section 88 of the bill, as follows:

The Governor in Council shall ensure that the members of a tribunal are capable, as a group, of hearing complaints in either official language, in accordance with section 16 of the Official Languages Act.

Finally, the third point deals with language training.

[English]

À (1025)

The bill does not touch on a major issue that is currently under the responsibility of the Public Service Commission, namely, language training for public servants. I believe this is an issue that needs to be clarified. Language training has played a crucial role since the very start of the official language program. It has made it possible to increase the bilingual capacity of the public service, while ensuring that unilingual Canadians can join the public service and advance within it. Many people agree that language training needs to be reviewed, particularly in order to put more emphasis on the professional development aspect, rather than simply satisfying, on paper, the language requirements for a position.

We propose two ways of giving language training the place it deserves. One option worth exploring would be to give responsibility for language training to the new school of public service that is provided for in Bill C-25. By doing this, the government would demonstrate that learning the other language is part and parcel of developing the knowledge and skills managers and employees must have to carry out their duties. Another advantage would be that the school would impart the values inherent in the language and culture through its professional development program, which would include language training. If the government were to choose this option, I propose that the following section be added to the mission and duties of the future school,:

provide language training so that public servants can reach the proficiency levels required for designated bilingual positions, in order to ensure that the Official Language Act is implemented and helps employees achieve their career goals.

Another possible option would be to create an official languages institute along the lines of the current Canadian Centre for Management Development. This institute would bring together under one roof language training, translation, terminology, and interpretation, as well as the related research activities. By bringing these activities together under an independent agency, the government would have the tool it needs to modernize language training, by linking it with the transmission of cultural values, and to continue the development of our expertise in translation and terminology. Such an institute would foster the development of the language industry in Canada and would ensure that our expertise is known internationally. If this option is adopted, the government will have to introduce legislation to that effect.

Whatever option is adopted by the government, it is important to ensure that language training becomes fully integrated into the professional development activities of the federal public service.

À (1030)

[Translation]

As my final point, I would like to turn to another important aspect related to the Public Service Employment Act that is not touched on by the bill. This is the exclusion approval order in regard to official languages. This order makes it possible to appoint people to bilingual positions who do not have the required linguistic skills by giving them two years to acquire the skills at government expense. In the bureaucratic jargon, this is called "non-imperative staffing".

I believe that this is a major anomaly that the government should address when revising the statutory regulations and related policies. The result of this policy is that knowledge of both official languages is not considered on the same footing as other skills needed to perform the functions of a position.

[English]

I therefore propose that non-imperative appointments be gradually eliminated, beginning with internal staffing, in order to send a signal that if you want a bilingual position, you have to acquire the requisite knowledge in advance. When a person wants a management position, he or she prepares for it by taking management courses or participating in a development program. The same principles should apply to the acquisition of linguistic knowledge. Imperative staffing should, therefore, be the rule for managers, beginning in April 2004, and for other positions in the public service being staffed internally, beginning in April 2006. Out of concern for fairness, though, steps should be taken to ensure that any motivated person who wants to have access to a bilingual position can obtain language training, regardless of the linguistic designation of his or her position. Greater priority will also have to be given to retaining language skills.

So as far as external hiring is concerned, I suggest that the government be allowed to continue to recruit people who do not meet the language requirements for a certain amount of time, because Canadians do no yet have adequate access in all parts of the country to programs for learning the other language. However, people who still do not meet the linguistic requirements for the position after the two-year period for learning the second language could not be selected for an appointment in the public service. The government has just announced major investments to encourage the learning of the second official language in school, and it seems only natural that non-imperative staffing should be gradually eliminated for external recruits. In this way, another major step would be taken towards making the public service a bilingual institution that reflects the fundamental value of linguistic duality.

[Translation]

In closing, in an era of pluralism and diversity, the public service must continually adapt in order to reflect changes in society. It must do so while continuing to include official languages in its underlying values. A bilingual public service can play a crucial role by helping to build bridges between our two official language communities and thus help to make our society more open to differences, the key to continual progress in accommodating the rights enshrined in our country's Constitution.

Thank you for your attention. I would be glad to answer any of your questions.

[English]

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

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I'm a member of Parliament from the west, where French is rarely heard. I'm very sympathetic to your role and the task you have before you to protect and preserve the French language in a world cultural milieu with French and German and Spanish and so on. These languages are now, as never before, under pressure, because of the global culture that's emerging.

I also thank you for the fact that when you've raised a problem, you've tried to be specific in relation to the bill to provide the solution. That's the kind of testimony we need here at the committee, and you've actually outlined a suggested text that would satisfy your concerns. Are you saying that if those brief three amendments you've suggested were made, that would satisfy your concerns reasonably well?

À (1035)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Then how would you address the problem of our young brightest and best from the west who really have no French capability at all? Increasingly, university students, say, from the University of British Columbia never even consider applying to the federal public service, because they know there'd only be a small chance that they'd ever be hired and they have absolutely no promotional possibilities whatsoever, even though the dominant working language of the federal public service is English throughout Canada. Also, as our federal public service interacts with nations around the world, the working language in every international forum is English. Recently, at the OSCE, when countries were arguing and got into trouble, the fall-back language was English. So how are we going to deal with the brightest and the best from the west being turned off and shut out from getting into the federal public service because of the language problem?

Ms. Dyane Adam: My responsibility is to oversee that government respects its own constitutional and legislative obligations concerning official languages, so I will not venture into international matters. But with the west, for example, it may be important for me to give you some statistics. Two-thirds of our positions in the public service do not have any linguistic requirements. Second, for example, in B.C. only 5% of the positions have linguistic requirements. So I think it's about time we stop perpetuating the myth that a unilingual person in the west or in Quebec cannot have access to positions in our public service at all. Further, a young, bright person coming into the federal public service who wants to make a career normally does not start at the top; they would not become a deputy minister, however bright they are. So that person has time to learn the skills needed to reach the top.

For me, what is important is that more and more in our new school or in our public service we treat this skill like any other skill that needs to be developed as we mature professionally. In the past--and I hope this will be corrected--we treated the question of language competence later in the career of an individual rather than sooner. What I'm proposing is that we ensure that those individuals who want to move into, let's say, the administrative or the bilingual positions do get a chance to learn the skills, get the appropriate training and support, and I think that would reduce some of your fears.

We have also to remind ourselves that all levels of government have been increasingly investing in linguistic training at the level of the primary and secondary school. For example, in B.C. immersion and core French programs are very vibrant, to the point where students cannot even get in those programs, there are not enough places. The decision of the federal government announced by Monsieur Dion and the Prime Minister about a week ago is quite important, because they are reinvesting in education and in allowing our Canadians to be bilingual officially, and multilingual. Although English is certainly an important language internationally, more and more nations are pushing to get their children and graduates to have more than one language, which is not the trend right now.

À (1040)

Mr. Paul Forseth: With females rising in management, we hear of this glass ceiling. Is the glass ceiling factor really not a problem as far as French language requirements in the federal public service are concerned?

Ms. Dyane Adam: If we handle this properly, no.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. Thank you.

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

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Adam. I also enjoy hearing a brief in which suggestions are made. I realize that everyone is in favour of the principle that underlies this act and that it must be passed, but I also know that nothing is perfect and I appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

In order to help my colleague from western Canada, you have quoted some interesting statistics. I would like to have the corresponding figures for Quebec. You tell us that 4 or 5 per cent of the positions in British Columbia require incumbents to be bilingual. I would like to know, however, how many people in Quebec must speak both languages in order to work for the public service. That will no doubt prove that it is much more difficult for unilingual francophones to fill the positions to which you referred.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I can answer, Mr. Lanctôt, by saying that more than 50 per cent of the positions in Quebec have some bilingual linguistic requirements. Of course, that excludes the National Capital Region. It is true that in Quebec it is more difficult for a unilingual francophone or anglophone to find a job if that person has no knowledge of the second language. I might point out that I brought this to the attention of Ms. Robillard as well as to Deputy Minister Quail's attention during the exercise he led, aimed at modernizing the public service. I explained that there was an anomaly, if I may use that term, since Quebec has more stringent requirements.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Even though we knew it existed, it is still hard to believe. How can we reconcile these facts and allow unilingual anglophones or francophones in Quebec to have access to the public service? As my colleague said, there are some very qualified and brilliant people within their individual fields who may only speak English or French. How can we ensure that these people will have access to the public service and then be allowed to take the courses? Let us not forget that one has to pay for English or French-language training in Quebec. One has to pay, whereas if one is already a public servant, the government will provide the training. What would you suggest to those who would like to be hired so as to benefit from these courses? That is one of the reasons why I liked your suggestion for non-imperative staffing, because it allows competent people to aspire to employment in the civil service. It is not simply a financial issue, it is also because public servants are given the time to learn a second language. That is not always the case elsewhere; it is not always possible because of production quotas. How do you feel about that?

À (1045)

Ms. Dyane Adam: The Canadian taxpayers pay for language training in various ways. Are we not paying for elementary and high school education, for example?

So, both the federal and provincial governments, in this case Quebec, pay for second-language training. It is possible to invest—either sooner or later—in training and development. Research has shown that when it comes to learning a language, the younger you start the easier it is.

I think that all schools in the country should provide learning opportunities in both official languages. The earlier you invest, the better the results will be. I believe it is also important, which is why I mentioned it in my brief, for taxpayers, through the federal government, to continue to fund language training for people who are not bilingual and who are in positions that are designated bilingual. I suggested today that this opportunity should be made available early in the career of any public servant whose intention it is to remain at the service of the Canadian public. At this point, language training is mostly limited to certain categories of positions. Therefore, I feel that something should be done there as well, but in both areas.

[English]

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

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Adam, your second recommendation had to do with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The recommendation was, I believe, that the tribunal should have facility in both official languages. Is your observation and recommendation based on real cases where there has been a complaint from persons that they didn't feel they were being heard properly or a perceived or a potential bias in the tribunal's activities?

Ms. Dyane Adam: It's really based on a study my predecessor published in 1999, entitled “Equitable Use of English and French before Federal Court and Administrative Tribunals Exercising Quasi-judicial Powers”. In that study, where we looked at how the different tribunals were implementing their responsibility and obligations towards the official languages, we do have evidence that in some cases the bilingual capacity of the tribunals was insufficient to allow a person to really be understood by the judges or the people who had to make a decision concerning their case. So it's more of a measure of prevention to see that as the Governor in Council nominates individuals, collectively, the bilingual capacity is there to ensure that we can comply with our act.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I take it, then, that there is sufficient evidence that there could be nuances in the presentation that may not be properly translated, and the best possible situation would be to have someone able to work in their first language and have that received by the tribunal in their first language, whether it be English or French, because of the importance of that particular situation.Yet I thought your recommendation was not as specific as perhaps it should be with regard to the tribunal as a group. I do not understand your recommendation. It could be that at least one person in there has to be fluent in English as their first language and another person fluent in French as their first language, and that would satisfy it. Or is your recommendation that not only must each and every member of the tribunal be bilingual, but the level of their skill in both official languages must be such as would eliminate the nuance concern you have raised?

À (1050)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Actually, I haven't mentioned anything concerning the mother tongue. As a group, the tribunal should have the capacity to listen to a person in--

Mr. Paul Szabo: Let me ask another question, then, that will try to clarify this. Since the tribunal has been in existence, has there always been one person on the committee who is perfectly fluent in English and at least one person who is perfectly fluent in French at the level of linguistic capacity that would satisfy your criteria, yes or no?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I cannot answer, because the tribunal does not yet exist. If we're talking about other tribunals, there are many. You're asking me to judge a list of tribunals, and I cannot say yes or no. What the study shows is that some tribunals did not have the capacity to receive complaints in the language of the complainant, and according to the act, the complainant has the right to be heard in the language of his or her choice and to be understood. It may be only a one-person tribunal that hears that individual, or it may be a group, depending on the nature of the tribunal.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But your testimony was that you don't want to have translation.

Ms. Dyane Adam: That's law, sir.

Mr. Paul Szabo: You've suggested that we don't want to have that person rely on translation for their message to be communicated to the tribunal person. You said that in testimony.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, sir, I say that because it's legislation in Canada.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I understand that, but you're saying that is not good enough.

Ms. Dyane Adam: No.

Mr. Paul Szabo: You're saying you still must have somebody on the tribunal who doesn't need the translation, regardless of what language you're in.

Ms. Dyane Adam: If it's a multi-person panel, all the people on the panel have to understand the complainant in his or her language.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So you want every member of the tribunal to be fluently bilingual in both official languages?

Ms. Dyane Adam: No. The tribunal may be 25 persons, and only one will hear the complainant, or three.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It goes back to my original question. The only question I want you to answer is, can you elaborate on what the legislation would say to satisfy you? Is it the majority of the committee, is it at least one in each official language, or is it all? You cannot just say something vague like “as a group”. It means nothing.

Ms. Dyane Adam: To specify may be hard, because the tribunals are very different. What I'm saying is that each tribunal should have sufficient bilingual capacity to meet the demands in either official language. Let's say you only have one person or two or three persons in a tribunal with a potential of 25 members and there is a waiting list in French. This tells me that probably you don't have sufficient bilingual capacity to handle your cases in that language. It may be only one you need if it's a one-person tribunal and there's little demand. It may be vague, but I think at this point in the legislation you should not be too specific.

À (1055)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madam Sgro. We're on the second round now, so five minutes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.

Some of the people I have met are having immense difficulty with this language issue. They're very frustrated that despite all the years they have been trying to be able to converse in the second language of our country, they're still have tremendous difficulty. As you said, they can't go any further. They won't end up in the DM positions, because they just can't master it. What happens there? Not everybody seems to be able to pick up languages so easily. What extra help can be given to recognize that? Is there anything else that can be done?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think language acquisition is like any other skill: you have to be motivated, you have learn the basics, and more importantly, you have to use it. If you don't use it, forget it. We know, if we don't golf regularly, we won't be very good at it, and it's the same thing with language. What we need to provide to our future employees--that would be in our school system--and in our workplace is the opportunity for learning and practice. The whole system of language training in our public service has often been geared towards learning the language to pass the test, and that is unfortunate. This is why I say we have to bring the two official languages into the culture and introduce incentives to have the employees use the language. A recent study done by the Treasury Board has shown that even with those bilingual anglophones in the system--there are about 72% of anglophones in management categories, which means they are bilingual--their use of French is very limited, involving perhaps 17% of their working time. We need to look into this a lot more, and we haven't been doing that very much.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I agree. The issue of practice is immensely difficult. I'm exposed to French in Ottawa, and the minute I step out of Ottawa, I am no longer exposed to it. I take two steps forward, and then another step back. Maybe we need to also look at pushing those opportunities. You're talking about an ideal world, which is non-existent at the moment for most people. That opportunity for conversation to reach a point where you're totally comfortable in either language is certainly an ideal thing to aim at.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It's an ideal, but we have to create those opportunities, no one will make it happen for us. We have in our own public service places where one language is more present than the other, so part of the training program of an individual would be to go to institutions and places in Canada where they would be immersed a lot more in the second language. That is what research says does give results.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.

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

I'd like to welcome Madame Robillard again, President of the Treasury Board, and thank her for taking some time to sit in and listen to witnesses and to members' questions.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

Á (1100)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The figures that you gave to my colleague and to me demonstrate the necessity of amending the preamble as it relates to the Official Languages Act.

You say that it is not simply the fact that we can be served in the language of our choice but that people must be respected whether they are unilingual anglophone or unilingual francophone. However, in Quebec, we have seen that there is quite an imbalance when it comes to requests that can be made. I would like the figures to include the National Capital, because that is also part of the public service. The figures that you gave us earlier were already quite high, but I would like to add the figures for the National Capital.

I would also like to thank you, Ms. Adam, for the work that is being done in amateur sport. The act was almost 60 years old. Our amendment, as well as yours, was defeated in committee. Then, through my work, we managed to demonstrate to the committee members, outside the room and even afterwards, that the Official Languages Act must be recognized in the preamble. And even though the bill has not yet been passed, I believe that the support you have given the Bloc Québécois has meant that it will be accepted and included in the bill's preamble. So it is wrong to say that it does not exist and can be found in no legislation; the committee must be made aware of that. There are already two or three statutes that recognize the need to respect the Official Languages Act in their preamble.

Of course, you can count on my support to include it in the new act. This will ensure that linguistic duality will not only mean that service will be provided in French, but will go even further and allow as many unilingual anglophones from Western Canada as people from Quebec, whether they be unilingual English or French, to benefit from this legislation. Do you agree with my interpretation?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, it is important to do that, especially since we are speaking about the federal public service which is at the very heart of the service that is given to the public. Any failure to demonstrate the values inherent in our linguistic duality, within our bureaucracy, will be reflected in the quality of service that is provided to the Canadian public. There is a close connection between our capacity to integrate the values of linguistic duality and our capacity to serve the Canadian public. Moreover, of course, this is required under the Official Languages Act, which involves not only the service provided to the public, as I said when...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: How can we convince the committee members around the table here? We had a hard time doing so earlier. I had to proceed in a way that is not usually the one we use for our purposes. When, in committee, we are asked why it should be included, since we already have the Official Languages Act... They understood it later.

What argument can we put forward so that our committee members will understand immediately why we must absolutely begin at that point? It would be preferable to have specific clauses in the act, but we can at least begin with what we have, and review it later, in seven years or during the seven years that are provided for the review of the act. How do we explain that?

I realize that you and I understand this great difference, because we already moved in that direction on another bill, but what can we say to convince the committee members that there is a difference between saying that the law exists and must be respected, and including it in the preamble?

Ms. Dyane Adam: There are two questions that I must answer. Let me come back to the statistics that you requested just now.

There cannot be just one argument, given that something that convinces one person may be different from what would convince someone else. But what seems important to me is that the bill already specifies certain values in the preamble, for instance that our public service should reflect diversity. This point was worthy of mention in the preamble.

But linguistic duality is a constitutional value, after all. It is firmly rooted in the Canadian Constitution, and there is a quasi-constitutional act, namely the Official Languages Act. This must be taken into account when dealing with representation. The government is obliged to implement the constitutional framework, and I think that one way to carry it out consists in ensuring that our federal public service be strictly guided by the supreme law of the land, which is our Constitution.

As for statistics, perhaps Mr. Langelier can answer you.

Á (1105)

Mr. Gilbert Langelier (Director, Special Investigations, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): You asked about the proportion of bilingual positions in the National Capital Region. According to figures for the end of March 2002, 63% of positions are bilingual and 36% of positions unilingual English.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think that there are no...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: ...unilingual French positions.

Mr. Gilbert Langelier: There are not many unilingual French positions.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Not many, or none at all?

Mr. Gilbert Langelier: It says “unilingual positions”. I do not see any distinction between “French” and “English”.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could we get it?

Mr. Gilbert Langelier: Yes, it would be possible.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think that there is a point to clarify. The statistics cover the National Capital Region both on the Ontario side and the Quebec side. These statistics cannot give us the percentages on both sides of the river. We can see whether any statistics are available and pass them on to you.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you very much.

[English]

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

When you're calculating those figures, perhaps you can supply them to the clerk.

Ms. Dyane Adam: We'll do that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): The last question goes to Madame Folco.

[Translation]

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

I know I am a little late in doing so, but I would also like to welcome you, Ms. Adam. I would also like to congratulate you on your continued pressure on our government. That resulted in the wonderful initiative recently announced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This initiative will be of great benefit to Canada in terms of people learning and using both official languages.

Since Minister Robillard is here, I would also like to congratulate the President of Treasury Board. Both professionally and personally, bilingualism in Canada—mainly in the public service, but not only there—is, in my view, fundamental. Indeed, the public service should reflect the Canadian public when it comes to official languages. As for your approach, I fully endorse the way you are proceeding.

And since I am offering congratulations, I would also like to congratulate my colleague opposite, Mr. Lanctôt, for having indirectly supported our Liberal government's initiative. I think Mr. Lanctôt and I have fairly similar views on the importance of the Official Languages Act and its enforcement by all government bodies throughout Canada. I think we are on the same wavelength, perhaps not entirely in agreement, but fairly close.

I mostly have comments, Ms. Adam, and relatively few questions to ask. We all know that the level of bilingualism of public servants that is verified by exams is not what most people expect. I think it is worth mentioning that for most people, being bilingual in the public service means speaking both languages fluently.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that isn't at all what the public service exams require. These focus on sufficient knowledge of the language for the public servant to carry out his or her tasks. That is a huge difference.

I can tell you that as a former linguist, I know what I am talking about. There is a huge difference between being truly bilingual and being sufficiently bilingual to get a position that is supposedly bilingual within the public service.

As a former linguist, I make the distinction between the spoken language and that which is understood. When you talk about the staffing tribunal and its members, and you say that whoever hears the complaint or the individual should be bilingual, are you talking about the tribunal member being bilingual enough to understand the complaint in the individual's language, or are you referring to the language skills he or she needs to verbally react in that same language? I think that that is a point that should be discussed.

Thank you.

Á (1110)

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think there's reference here to a legal interpretation; under our legislation, the plaintiff or the person whose case is being heard must be understood. Nothing says that the plaintiff should be able to hold a lengthy discussion with the person hearing the case. The fundamental issue here is that the person being heard must be understood. That is what our Canadian legislation requires.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, may I intervene to continue the discussion on this?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Only if I have the right to comment on what my colleague may say!

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I want to fully understand the current situation. In order for an individual's case to be heard by the tribunal and for the rulings by the tribunal to be clear, the person hearing the case must fully understand the individual and be able to justify the grounds for his or her ruling.

Ms. Dyane Adam: In fact, I am referring to the legislative text, practically verbatim. Courts are really obliged to understand the plaintiff, or whomever they hear, in the plaintiff's own language.

You are right. Does it go as far as...? All I can tell you is what the act says and what it does not specify. Perhaps this act is vague, but I cannot go beyond the legal text.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: As a lawyer, I would like to interpret this.

[English]

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

Thank you very much for coming before us.

The meeting is adjourned.