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

Monday, April 28, 2003

1530

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

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain (As Individual)

The Chair

1535

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

The Chair

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

1540

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1545

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1550

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

The Chair

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1555

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1600

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1605

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1610

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1615

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1620

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

The Chair

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

1625

The Chair

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain

Le président

Mr. Donald Savoie (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

1630

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

1635

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1640

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Donald Savoie

1645

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

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

Mr. Donald Savoie

1650

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Donald Savoie

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Donald Savoie

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Donald Savoie

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Ken Epp

1655

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

1700

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

1705

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

M. Roy Cullen

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Donald Savoie

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Donald Savoie

1710

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

1715

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

1720

Mr. Donald Savoie

1725

The Chair

Mr. Donald Savoie

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 032

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Let's come to order. This is meeting 32 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on Monday, April 28, 3:30 p.m.

We have been discussing some of the testimony and work that went into the creation of this bill.

We are here to hear from two individuals by teleconference.

Our first witness is Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain. Given the nature of these particular hearings, perhaps you'd like to start with some opening remarks.

You are aware that the government has released a considerable portion of the information we were interested in. You and some of the other witnesses had some concerns about speaking about information that had been delivered in confidence. But I think that has been bridged now, and I was told that you would be made aware of that.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain (As Individual): That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I am aware of that.

The Chair: I need to tell you, sir, that committee members have not yet seen this. In an effort to expedite things, we went ahead with these hearings. They will not be knowledgeable about the material that has been released to them because it's just being copied now.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: In light of that, Mr. Chairman, I really don't have an opening statement. But maybe I could make a couple of comments in response to that information, which might be useful to the committee.

Let me start by saying that I'm very appreciative of the courtesy of the committee in enabling this to be done by video conference. It seems to work pretty well, I must say. I'm impressed.

Perhaps I should take a couple of moments to talk about the sort of advice I gave the government with regard to public service reform and give you some information about myself so that you can situate where the advice is coming from. I have been a consultant for the past eight years. I'm semi-retired, but I have kept my hand in over the years. Prior to that I was a federal public servant for 25 years. I have specialized in what's called the machinery of government. If I could detain you with a quick definition of what is sometimes regarded as a kind of mysterious phrase, the machinery of government, essentially, is about the efficient organization of the government and the orderly and proper functioning of the relationships and roles of government institutions in the context of the principles, practices, and conventions of parliamentary and cabinet government. So it's a broad-ranging subject, placing government organization in that, if you like, constitutional context. I've written fairly extensively on this subject, and much of my career has been devoted to work that relates to it.

With regard to the work of the task force looking into public service reform, I was asked by Mr. Quail somewhat over a year and a half ago to provide advice and comments on the machinery-of-government aspects of the work they were doing. In that particular context machinery of government deals with the roles of the key players in the human resources development system, namely, the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board and its secretariat, and the deputy heads of departments, and the questions that arise in relation to the roles and responsibilities of these key players and what the balance of the distribution of authorities and responsibilities should be. So that was the area of the advice I gave to the task force. The papers that have now been released reflect pretty well, I think, all of that advice in exactly the form that it was given, which was principally a series of letters to Mr. Quail dealing with machinery of government for public service human resources management. So that's the role I played off and on over the last 18 months.

The Chair: We'll now turn to questioning.

Mr. Forseth.

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

In view of a lot of the recommendations you made and the end product, which is Bill C-25, perhaps you could give some general comments about how well the government got it from your perspective. Perhaps you could also give us an evaluation of the bill in view of your specific advice in the areas of expertise that you contributed to. That's the first side.

The second side would be whether there are one or two areas where you may be a bit concerned that it may be problematic in the future. Government made choices, and we all understand that. We're going to have to take your evidence in context with other people who will give evidence, and then we'll try to make some sense out of that. We want to tease out of you the best you have to give as to an assessment of the bill and some of the underlying directions that were given.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: First of all, there's much in the bill that is outside of the areas I was advising on, as you know, and I realize that you've asked the question in relation to the advice that I was giving.

The bill is a modest step forward in relation to the machinery-of-government changes that could be made in the human resources management area. The models that were discussed and the sort of advice I gave all sought to the fullest extent possible to try to separate out the roles of those three critical players that I described earlier; in other words, the Treasury Board and its secretariat, the Public Service Commission, and individual deputy heads.

The criticism of the public service to this point is not that it's lacking in expertise or in high standards--it has very high values--but that it has a management system that is very heavy and where there's a lot of duplication. It needs to be streamlined, the roles should be clarified, and so on.

My bottom line advice to the government was, frankly, that if you really want to streamline the human resources development process, you need to concentrate as much authority as you possibly can in the hands of the employer, as it's called in the language of this business, and you need to balance that with really effective oversight and audit of what is being done in the human resources management system. You'll see that in the papers I gave to the government there is an ideal model, and the ideal model is the Treasury Board with a preponderance of authority in relation to all matters that touch on human resources development, with delegation from the Treasury Board to deputy heads, and with the Public Service Commission as an auditor. But that is a perfect model.

The Public Service Commission and its role, as you well know in the committee, is long established and historic, and it is a very important institution of government. To go from the existing arrangements to something totally new overnight is perhaps accurate expert advice, and it's certainly my expert opinion, but on the other hand it is probably not a practical way to proceed all in one step. As I said, my view is that the bill is incremental on the machinery-of-government changes that I think would ultimately be desirable. But I'm merely an advisor to the government. Ministers are responsible, and it's their judgment, after taking all the factors into account, as to what seems to be a sensible way to move forward. In that context I think the changes that are proposed, because they do promise a simplification of staffing, are indeed a step in the right direction. That's the first part of your question.

With regard to the second part, areas of concern, let me just touch on two areas that I'm a little troubled by. There is a tremendous amount of weight placed by the government on its changes regarding merit. I think these changes, to the extent that they're designed to streamline the staffing process, are probably desirable. But I have two concerns. The first concern is whether in fact the changes that they believe will flow from being able to set aside the jurisprudence in terms of the definition of merit, which has gathered like barnacles on the hull of a ship over the years, will take place. I have no answer to that. It is simply a concern.

¹ (1545)

Secondly, I'm somewhat doubtful about moving from what I call competitive merit--I believe it's called relative merit in the language in this part of government--to individual merit. I understand the reasons for doing this. But I just think that as a matter of principle the idea of competitive merit is long established and important. It is important in the way in which the Public Service Commission has evolved over the years. Indeed, in 1918 the most important change that took place then, in my judgment, was the extension to the entire public service--civil service, as it then was--of the competitive system for entry and advancement. So there is a question in my mind about that.

My other area of concern has to do with--I forget the exact terminology--the review tribunal in relation to staff matters. I have expressed some concerns to the government about creating another arm's-length body in this area. I'm sure that the objectives are good, and if it works well, this will be an improvement, too. But it's still an additional agency, and I'm not entirely sure that it's a necessary agency. Let me put it that way.

Those would be my areas of some reservation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have given your expert opinion based on the mandate given to you, and you must certainly have studied the draft bill. The whole aim was in fact to simplify the hiring process and to have a new public service. The idea was to place the authority in the hands of the employer. Now that you have seen the baby on paper, do you believe the baby represents a good way of reaching these objectives? It is as if we were excluding a large portion of the public service. As for the involvement of public servants and their union representatives, our impression is that we have gone from one extreme to the other. What is your view?

[English]

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, I do have to keep coming back to my area of expertise, which is machinery of government and not labour relations. There are many things in this bill that are way beyond any possible expertise I could offer to the government or the committee.

As I said in my earlier comments, in the judgment of the government, based on matters that are really beyond my expertise--for example, the question of how merit will be interpreted and applied in the future--the bill represents a streamlining of staffing and an attempt to speed it up. That's the key thing for me. It also represents, in the view of the government, a means of speeding up and streamlining grievance processes. If these are indeed the results that the bill achieves, then the bill is indeed a move in the right direction in terms of the matters that concern me in relation to public service reform, which is a simplification and clarification of responsibilities. But, as I said in my opening remarks, it is a modest step forward.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. Simplification should be a positive thing, but we sometimes manage to make a simple thing complicated. We see that complaints can only be made for two reasons, performance appraisals and abuse of authority. We are talking about staffing and performance. Might it not be very difficult to identify the problems that could arise in the case of an appointment, especially if the process becomes very personal and very subjective, as you say, and if the basis for a complaint is limited to things that are very difficult to prove in law? Should we not be trying to broaden the grounds for complaint?

[English]

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chair, I would very much like to be able to help the committee, but, frankly, those questions are totally beyond any expertise or competence I can bring to the table. I think you have to ask the government and its experts in these very complex and technical areas what their best judgment is about the likely net effect of these proposed changes.

The Chair: If I may assist here, I think the parts of the bill that you were consulted on are the ones on the Public Service Employment Act, as opposed to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I think, Mr. Lanctôt, that your questions are germane to the first part of the bill, not the part that Mr. d'Ombrain has acted in. Is that a fair characterization?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Yes, Mr. Chairman, although in fact I was never consulted on the bill itself, as I recall, but I was consulted, obviously, on all the preliminary work that led to the bill. You're absolutely correct, it would be on the part that deals with the Public Service Commission and so on.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The consultation took place at that level. There is an important point that you probably dealt with in your study. We have the documents here but we have not yet been able to look at them. If this change is made to the public service, how will be able to reach an agreement with public servants and their unions? This is part of the change to be made to the public service, and you have most certainly studied this relationship between public servants and their representatives and the government. I would like to know what mandate you were given exactly.

Were you asked to identify cosmetic changes that should be made? Were you asked if granting more authority to the employer instead of seeking to establish a better balance between the two parties would improve the public service? Were you asked if the public service would improve if we simplified things, allowing deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers to directly control appointments and certain other things? Was that part of your mandate? If not, please tell me what mandate it is you were given.

[English]

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, the sorts of things I gave advice on, as I've indicated, were the basic rules and responsibilities of the Public Service Commission, Treasury Board, and so on. I also gave advice on what is appropriate. As I said to you, the machinery of government has to do with organizing the government in a way that is consistent with the requirements of parliamentary and cabinet government. For example, is it appropriate that deputy ministers rather than some other body make appointments? This is an area I gave advice on, things of that sort.

I did not give the government any advice on anything to do with labour relations or what might be described as improved efficiency within the public service as a result of whatever reforms the government chose to present to Parliament. With respect, I think those issues have to do with efficiency and the internal operations of the public service and the relationships between unions, management, and so on. These are not areas where I was consulted, nor did I offer advice, to the best of my recollection.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Mr. d'Ombrain, I'll try to stick as closely as I can to what I understand to be your area of expertise. I have a couple of questions related to the machinery of government as it pertains to this particular initiative. One has to do with the matter of merit and the delegated authorities to various departments and agencies of the government. Some have suggested that the role should remain with the Public Service Commission in terms of an audit capability or some ability to go in and evaluate departments and agencies of the government to see that they are implementing the merit principle as was intended. Would you support something along those lines, or do you think the accountability is strong enough in the current act with the role of deputies as described?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, as I read the current act, the Public Service Commission has an unlimited audit authority. I do not believe that should be changed in any way. Maybe it can be elaborated on, refined, and so forth. But I think the basic principle that the Public Service Commission must have untrammelled authority to audit the way in which the staffing system works, and obviously the application of merit is key to that, is key to the entire way in which we in Canada have developed at the federal level a public service that is based on professionalism, non-partisanship, and so on. I think it's fundamentally important.

Mr. Roy Cullen: What I think you're also saying, then, if I understood you correctly, is that this bill in the way it's structured does not impede the Public Service Commission at all in using that audit capability.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: I'd have to examine the bill itself in a great deal more detail than I have. So I really can't answer that question. But I can say that it is my advice that it should not be impeded.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Then we'll also read the bill more carefully ourselves.

I have a second question. In terms of the Public Service Commission, you have probably heard the argument that it's somewhat of a hybrid organization. It has responsibilities to Parliament and some executive responsibilities in terms of staffing, training, and the like. One proposal, which has been put on the table by myself, is an amendment that would require that the president of the Public Service Commission be appointed through a process that would involve parliamentarians. Under my proposal the two other commissioners would be appointed by order in council. I know that the Privy Council Office and others argue that because of this dual role in terms of executive responsibilities and parliamentary responsibilities, it becomes very difficult, if not unmanageable. I wonder what are your views on it.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: I think one can be creative and find a way to make that happen.

The Public Service Commission does have a fundamental problem in that it is both an executive organization and an auditor reporting to Parliament. The burden of all of my advice is that we should be moving toward some way to resolve this contradiction in its mandate.

But, as I said earlier, I would be the first to recognize that you can't sweep aside close to 100 years of history overnight. You have to go incrementally. This is a very strong institution. It's deeply rooted in the whole way in which our public service functions, and we have a very fine public service. So to make that sort of fundamental change overnight would probably be unwise.

On the other hand, we should not allow the fact that the commission is part of the executive and is in effect auditing itself to weaken its independence or the perception of its independence in any way. So long as the appointment of the president of the commission was handled in such a way that it was clearly and completely above any suggestion of partisanship of any sort, then I would be open to consider any method of appointment that would enhance the independence of the commission.

º (1600)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Currently, appointments are brought to parliamentary committees, but they're after the fact. So they are not, to my way of thinking, very constructive. One can comment after the fact. But if parliamentarians are not involved at the outset, then it becomes somewhat of an academic exercise.

Building on your thinking there, would it be conceivable, feasible, or desirable to actually split the Public Service Commission into two entities and have one report to Parliament and one to the executive branch?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: I wouldn't characterize it quite like that. There is a model that would have the executive functions of the commission, if I could put it that way, moved over to the Treasury Board as the employer, leaving the commission as a pure auditor. I happen to think it's feasible, but only over time. But I think it's feasible.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Why just over time? Just because of the culture and change in tradition, solely that?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: With respect, I think it's a pretty big “solely”. The commission is intricately involved in the senior appointment process within the government. I mean below the deputy level; that is, ADMs, directors general, and so forth. It has a unique perspective. The Treasury Board has a totally different sort of culture.

Perhaps a case could be made for having a public service personnel agency separate from the Treasury Board. Sorry, let me rephrase that. It would be quite doable to split the functions. However, there would be a tremendous amount of controversy, and there would be many who would think that this was a step in the direction of the politicization of the public service by placing the responsibility for staffing, the application of merit, and so forth in the hands of the government. There would be those who would say that. There is no doubt that is a real risk. It's not to be dismissed lightly. We would be throwing away an institution, the federal public service, that has been served pretty well by its existing institutions for managing its personnel.

I said earlier in my remarks that as far as I'm aware, the worst thing that can be said about the public service in terms of the management of its people is that it's slow and cumbersome. It takes six, eight, nine months to run a competition. It's difficult to get newcomers and new blood into the public service. Those are all serious problems, but they pale completely in comparison to a public service that is politicized, incompetent, and so forth. So one has to be very careful in considering reform as to just how much reform is absorbable at a given time and at what price. If the price is any of those things--politicization, growth, and incompetence--then I have to say to you that it's not worth it.

º (1605)

Mr. Roy Cullen: I would have thought that having the president of the Public Service Commission appointed by the Parliament of Canada would lead to the exact opposite result. In fact, if I were a member of the opposition, I would be arguing that the president of the Public Service Commission should be appointed by Parliament in a non-partisan format. I suppose it depends on which functions you might attach to which branches of government and Parliament. I find it interesting that you would see people criticizing it as a politicization of the public service. I see exactly the opposite.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, let me clarify what I said. I was making a general comment about reforms that might take us in the direction of increased partisanship and so on. I was not commenting on Mr. Cullen's suggestion at all. There are, in fact, quite a number of models in existing arm's-length agencies where there is at least consultation required by statute before appointments are made. I would certainly support that. I'm not saying that your proposal is a non-starter at all. I would want to look at it carefully. I would want to look at the other models and precedents and any other special considerations that you or others might want to bring forward and in that light consider it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. d'Ombrain, thank you very kindly for being here.

This is a very unusual situation where the committee has diverted from its scheduled path to do a little more reflection with a little more input. I think your input has crystallized for probably a lot of people in this room some of the decisions that have to be taken in terms of crafting a framework for the legislation. We've heard terms such as “balance”, “incrementalism”, and “modest steps”.

I was interested in your observation that we have to ensure we're dealing with speeding up staffing and addressing grievances. There's also merit. These are the things that our public service personnel are going to be more familiar with and will probably concentrate on most in terms of assessing it.

My question has to do with an observation made by one witness that the bill was going to be received by public service personnel somewhat skeptically because of history. I wonder if you believe that the modest steps we are now taking in this bill are sufficient to address the deeply rooted cynicism of the management of the public service.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Frankly, I can't answer the last part of that question. I don't know. The bill, on which I am not an expert, is very long, very complicated, and highly detailed. It is certainly incremental. It does not have sweeping new principles to advance in terms of major change in organization, responsibilities, and so on. So in that sense I think it would be quite difficult to engage people in an understanding of what is in fact at stake with the bill. But I think that's inevitably part of an incremental approach. This is not something you're going to be able to wave a flag over.

º (1610)

Mr. Paul Szabo: In terms of the governance model, and I understand that there's a difference between the approaches available to the public and private sectors, this decision to define the roles of the main players, which are Treasury Board, Privy Council, and the Public Service Commission.... The Clerk of the Privy Council was described as being high level leadership, kind of on a macro basis; the Treasury Board was defined as the employer; and the Public Service Commission was defined as the protector of the principles of merit and dealing with issues to ensure there's a non-partisan environment. Since this bill is the first effort in some 40 years, I'm advised, to modernize the governance model of the public service, should we just assume that there is a reluctance to move fully toward an optimal structure simply because the culture of the public service could not respond reasonably well to too large a step at this time?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Let me try to answer that, Mr. Chairman, in the following way. The reform attempts on the governance of the public service have been going on ever since the Glasco commission reported in the 1960s. Periodically, there have been reports, such that of the Lambert commission and the D'Avignon report, and later on there was the internal exercise called Public Service 2000. If you review all of that over a period of 35-odd years, what you take away from all this effort is that various people made proposals, which were taken under consideration in the public service. A wide range of views and opinions were expressed, some of which I have reflected in my comments to you about some of the concerns people have about tinkering around with the institutions of public service management. The net result has been that until this bill came along, there has been very little change in the way the public service is managed, at least in a formal legislative sense. There have, of course, been changes in practices and so forth over the years, but there hasn't been fundamental change. That's because there really hasn't been agreement over the years as to what that change should be.

Mr. Paul Szabo: My final query to you is with regard to one of the last things you talked about, the new arm's-length body, the new agency. I gather that your view is that it may not be necessary to do this, that there are opportunities elsewhere to discharge those roles or functions that are being ascribed to the agency. Could the creation of this agency in fact be a risk area that may exacerbate the situation or detract from or somehow frustrate the objectives that are being sought by the other modest steps being taken in the legislation?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, I can only comment on that in structural terms. What I mean by that is if the appointments to the new tribunal are not appropriate and are not able to deliver the product the government has set out in the legislation, then you're certainly going to have a problem. So there is a little bit of a risk in that. My other comment, which I made earlier, was really a very broad, government-wide comment. I think that in order to justify the creation of these small new agencies, you need to have a very good case that the work that they will do cannot be done by some existing body.

I would like to add, if I may, that this is not a major concern on my part. I was asked whether there were any areas where I had some reservations. I have a slight reservation. But that's not fundamental in any way.

º (1615)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

For the information of members, I note that we have about 11 minutes left with Mr. d'Ombrain before we move to Mr. Savoie.

I have on my list Mr. Epp, Mr. Tirabassi, and Mr. Lanctôt. I, of course, have a question.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I actually have just a very short question, which I think the chairman will appreciate. You talked about the need for incrementalism and not changing 80 years of history overnight. I presume the reason for that is because we want to continue to enjoy the cooperation of our civil service. Basically, we need their consent to be governed by this new law in a congenial way or else we're going to run into some trouble. Is that the reason you are saying that? Do you think this bill delivers on that account, or are we in trouble in that area?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: I think that the first thing the public service must do is be professional and loyal. So I would hope that they will accept whatever the government and Parliament decide to do to the management of the public service. I believe they would because I believe the values in the public service are high. But at the same time I think it's fair to say that I don't think it would be wise to impose on the public service radical or fundamental changes about which there was a fundamental division of opinion within the public service. No one should ever underestimate the disruptive cost of organizational change. It is very high. The more significant and important the institutions are that you start making changes to, the more difficult it is, and the more time it will take for those changes to take root.

Mr. Ken Epp: In your opinion, is this bill going too far, too fast?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: No. On the contrary, I would say that this bill is a modest step forward in the right direction provided it can deliver on its promise to simplify staffing, redress, and so on. It is a modest step forward and it's in the right direction because the safeguards that are so important are in place in this bill. The commission is still there, and it still has the appointing authority. There's no risk being taken in this bill.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the chair explained earlier, Mr. d'Ombrain, the submissions are now before the committee and being translated. They are quite voluminous. I don't know when you authored your particular submission, what the timeframe was. While you were answering questions this afternoon, did anything come to mind that you may wish to highlight for us so that when we go through the document, we'll know that you've...? You have done your best to try to represent the documents here. Is there anything outstanding?

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: I should perhaps explain. The documents primarily are a series of letters to Mr. Quail written over an 18-month-plus period commenting on this and that aspect of the various things they were working on. They're quite episodic in the sense that months would go by and I would have no involvement, and then I'd be asked my opinion on something. I reviewed those very quickly before coming to this meeting, and I think I've touched on the key points that seem to me still to have merit--no pun intended.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt, a brief question.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In summary, you are telling us that the changes that should be made are enormous, but that we must start at the beginning, and this seems to be a small beginning. This act has not been amended for 35 years and we are attempting to change it. We have for two years been working on a bill that in your view only simplifies things by giving a little more or perhaps even a lot more authority to the employer. Even though this does not fall within your area of expertise, you are perhaps bringing a change in the relationship between public servants and public service managers. We want the public service to be less partisan etc. and we are concentrating authority in the hands of the employer.

I would like to know your personal opinion. Did you advise the government to simply make this one small step? We must change the public service in order for it to perform better and be less partisan. Is this the right way to accomplish this? In other words, we must not juggle things around, or only very slightly, but we must change relations between the employer and the employee. Was that your advice to the government or did you rather recommend that it move further ahead immediately within this changed framework?

º (1620)

[English]

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, I have given the government no advice on the labour relations elements of this bill.

The broad advice that I have given to the government is that to the extent they think it is feasible, they need to clarify the roles of the key institutions that are involved here. I have given them from time to time, as you will see in these letters, the ideal model of the employer exercising all the executive authorities in one form or another and the commission auditing what the employer is doing. It's a model that we'll only get to over time.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: May I ask one final question?

The Chair: A very short one.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The committee has heard union representatives and they are not at all happy with the way this is being done. I do not wish to know if you are an expert in this area. You have proposed something that would be the ideal, but if that ideal does not happen, what will be the impact of the small change that you are attempting to make in order to simplify this relationship with public servants?

[English]

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: With respect, I don't think I can really add much to what I've said in answer to that.

The Chair: Let me simply add a comment, and then we'll move on to Mr. Savoie. The act that we currently operate under came into force in 1967, two years before a man landed on the moon, 13 years before the IBM personal computer, and 23 years before the World Wide Web. At the end of this process, 35 years later, we are going to make what can best be described as a small incremental step forward on the structural issues.

I was interested, Mr. d'Ombrain, in your reference to structure because this is something that I believe in very strongly. It strikes me that in a world where decisions are moving much more quickly; where governments as well as other organizations and citizens have to respond to things much more quickly; and where one has to build a culture of learning, innovation, and change, one of the things we're struggling with is whether this little structural step is sufficient if we have to wait another 35 years. One of the great sadnesses expressed by members of this committee has been how little attention is paid to the management of our human resource. I'm not completely satisfied that this puts us in the place we need to be in order to build the kind of public service that's going to be able to respond to the challenges of the next 35 years.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Mr. Chairman, structurally, I think that's absolutely right. I don't think it does. If it takes 35 years to move beyond these modest proposals, then I shall certainly be disappointed, although I won't be around to see it. None of us will, I suppose, or most of us won't. Anyway, this is modest, and I hope it would not be regarded as the last word for the next full generation of public servants. I absolutely agree with that.

º (1625)

The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today.

Mr. Nicholas d'Ombrain: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Le président: Welcome, Mr. Savoie.

Mr. Donald Savoie (As Individual): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Savoie, if you were listening to the discussion with Mr. d'Ombrain, you'll have some sense of some of the issues the committee is interested in.The members have the paper you put forward. Would you like to add any introductory remarks to that, sir?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes, I did listen very carefully to what Nick d'Ombrain had to say. I was struggling to find what I would say that would be very different. I may not be very successful.

I circulated a document last Friday. I have a brief summary of that document, which I can read if the chair wishes.

But perhaps, as Mr. d'Ombrain did, I should start by saying who I am.

[Translation]

I hold the Clément-Cormier Chair at the University of Moncton and I am a professor of public administration.

[English]

I have written a great deal about the public service, and I like to think I'm a keen student of public administration.

I can read the brief statement if you so wish.

The Chair: All the members have a copy of the statement. Would you like Mr. Savoie to walk us through it? No. Mr. Savoie, this team is pretty darn on the bit here. They'd like to get down to questions.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Oh, they actually read it. Very good.

The Chair: It happens here.

Is there any particular part of it you want to draw their attention to, or shall we go right to questions?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes, there is. I would like to just say a few words about your committee.

[Translation]

First of all, I would like to congratulate the chair and several other members of Parliament for their work leading up to the establishment of the committee. This is a very important development in my view.

[English]

I want to applaud the work of your committee. It is one of the most promising developments in recent years on Parliament Hill, in my view. The challenge for you and your committee will not be to establish a list of things to do but rather to decide where you should concentrate your efforts.

I'm open to all questions.

The Chair: If you could help us with that part of our problem, how to prioritize, it would be of great benefit to us.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

Welcome to this exchange.

In view of your book and now looking at the bill and in view also of the advice you gave government, I'm wondering if there are some areas that are particularly troubling to you, which we should focus on. The committee is carrying out a review function of the bill. That's why we want your testimony, to look at some of the underlying analysis so that we would have a better basis on which to assess future amendments to the bill. Maybe we can focus in on your background and expertise and do some analysis of the bill indicating the hot points we should watch out for.

º (1630)

Mr. Donald Savoie: When you referred to the book, are you referring to Governing from the Centre?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I am.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I'm not sure there's much of a link between that book and this bill.

I would urge the committee not to try to fix every problem of government on the back of this bill. I think the work of your committee is terribly important in terms of the relationship between Parliament and government. There's a lot of misunderstanding about these roles, and your committee can play a very useful role.

The point I would like to make is let's leave the book aside. We can come back to it at some other point. But I'm not sure there's much of a link.

In your second question you asked about concerns about the bill. I will echo what Nick d'Ombrain said awhile ago. This is a modest step forward. Modesty has never been my forte. I would hope that Parliament would have an occasion to review this bill, assuming it goes forward, much earlier than 35 years. I accept the wisdom of moving slowly.

I do think, however, that there's still a great deal of work to be done with regard to clarifying roles. Since the documents I prepared for the task force have now been made public, you will have seen that in them I make it very clear that I think the more we can clarify the role of the Public Service Commission, Treasury Board, and deputy ministers, the further we will be. Does this bill clarify those roles adequately? I stress that it is a modest step and an important step in the right direction.

The point I'm making is that it's not a complete solution, and I would hope that it would be reviewed fairly soon. It's for that reason that in the document I circulated I suggest that the committee should look at a review of the legislation not in seven years, but in five years. I assume that between now and five years, if this legislation goes forward, we will have some experience with what has been put in place, and we will then, hopefully, have the wisdom to go a bit further.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Because we're short of time, I will turn it over to the next questioner.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It is a bit of a problem for me to re-ask the questions I asked earlier, because I will certainly be told the same thing. You probably had a specific section you wished to deal with, and you are stating once again that we must make but a small step forward. Will this small step that we are now trying to make come at the right time? Is this the small step that we should be making right away? I would like to know if the advice that you have given the government, Treasury Board or Cabinet...

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Savoie, can you still hear us?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Awhile ago the lights went off here, and I assume that you can't see me. But I can hear you.

The Chair: Most often they say that happens at this end.

If you can hear us, then let's carry on. Hopefully, someone will realize that you're sitting there in the dark and will turn your lights back on.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I hope somebody will be able to shed some light on this discussion.

º (1635)

The Chair: The light is all at this end right now, I have to tell you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Donald Savoie: I see that.

[Translation]

Mr. Lanctôt, you have asked a very good question. You have asked if the time was well chosen to make this small step.

I believe there is no good time or bad time to reform the public service. If we have the opportunity to bring reform to the public service, a rather rare occurrence, then we must do it. This is not a debate that really gets people going. When we talk about the public service, people remain indifferent. Unemployment insurance, however, greatly interests them. The reform of the public service does not interest them very much. We now have a golden opportunity to bring reform to the public service. Is this a good time? In my view, anytime is a good time to reform the public service. Therefore, if we have the opportunity to carry out such a reform, then let us go ahead with it.

You also asked me if what we are planning on doing will be sufficient and if the reforms will be broad enough. I would have preferred to see us go a little further, but it is a step in the right direction, and in my opinion, it is a very important step.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You are telling us that you would have liked to see us go further. What should the government have done, at the speed with which it is able to move ahead?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Only the government and Parliament can answer that question. I would have preferred that we be a little less modest, but others advised the government to move by small steps. This is what it decided to do and it is probably a wise decision. I nevertheless would have preferred to see better clarified in this bill the roles of the Public Service Commission and of Treasury Board.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Given that we do not yet have your document, could you tell us what additional steps the government should have taken?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes, and I could even quote you the document. Unfortunately, I am in complete darkness here. I am not even able to read the document.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We believe you. I hope things are not looking black to you.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I have here a document that was made public and that I would much like to read to you, but unfortunately, that is not possible right now.

[English]

The Chair: I should say, Mr. Savoie, that our technician at this end is phoning the people at your end.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Ah, you are enlightening us!

[English]

Mr. Donald Savoie: I thought for awhile it might have been some reference to the Governing from the Centre book. Somebody in Ottawa turned the switch off.

The Chair: I want it noted that somebody in Ottawa just turned it back on.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Now you have rather too much light there, it appears. Perhaps someone will come in and adjust that.

Mr. Donald Savoie: At least I can read a document.

The Chair: Good.

[Translation]

Mr. Donald Savoie: Mr. Lanctôt, if you will allow me, I would like to read this document in English, because the memorandum I prepared is in English. I could perhaps translate it for you, but it will be easier for me to read it in English.

[English]

The ideal solution, in my view, remains, one, delegating staffing authority to departments through deputy ministers; two, if one truly believes that the Public Service Commission needs to have a hand in staffing to ensure a non-partisan public service, then one could hand it the key to the front door and say that all new appointments to the public service need to have the full blessing of the Public Service Commission, but even here I would have some concerns; three, to the extent possible, in light of point number two, turn the Public Service Commission into an agency of Parliament and give it a clear audit mandate. This will ensure that departments are accountable for staffing decisions. Again, to the extent possible, remove the Public Service Commission from any operational role in human resources management. It simply no longer works for the Public Service Commission to have one foot in Parliament and the other in government.

[Translation]

This is the ideal model that I have described. I imagine that this is the model we will be at within a few years' time. But I well understand why the preferred way is to go slowly with small steps and I believe that this is wise. I think Mr. d'Ombrain gave a very good explanation of why we want to take small steps.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

Mr. Savoie, a number of stakeholders have been waiting for your appearance with interest, I'm sure. It was your name that triggered much of the discussion about whether or not we should suspend the clause-by-clause consideration. I think you probably met expectations. Your presentation, along with Mr. d'Ombrain's, has really given us something we haven't had very much of, and that's a more objective assessment of the process and where we are.

Everybody has talked about providing balance to the greatest extent possible, modest steps, etc. You're suggesting an earlier review than is proposed by the bill, to five years from seven years. You've also laid out what would be a next logical step to move forward to. Is there anything that's going to happen with this interim step, as it were, that is going to further enshrine it or allow roots to go even deeper so that it may make it almost impossible to take those final steps toward a non-hybrid role for the Public Service Commission and generally the governance model you just laid out?

º (1640)

Mr. Donald Savoie: The short answer to that is no. The reason I say that very quickly is that, as I learned in Politics 101, Parliament is supreme. Parliament makes decisions. If the government comes forward with legislation five years from now to implement a new model, it shall be implemented.

I want to thank you for the kind words you said about Nick d'Ombrain and me and the two presentations. I just want to remind you that there's a lot of wisdom on the east coast. So just keep tapping in, and we'll be happy to share any wisdom we may have. If you recall, the Bible says that the wise men came from the east coast.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's the fish food, I'm sure.

The Chair: Now watch it, I'm a westerner here.

Mr. Paul Szabo: And beef.

I was very interested in your recommendation with regard to proposed section 41 on the appointments. I tend to agree with you, and I'm going to be recommending an amendment to the bill as a consequence of your intervention. I think it makes a great deal of sense considering that the issue of non-partisanship and the objective of moving toward a non-partisan environment is an integral and important aspect of the administration and operation of the public service. I think that kind of change would be a good signal on behalf of the government to all the stakeholders that the public service is a non-partisan, professional body of people serving the people of Canada.

Mr. d'Ombrain suggested speeding up the staffing process and dealing with the problem where the public service had gotten to the point where it found it was easier to get contracted part-time people than it was to put in place a full-time person. This was so serious that 80% of new hires were not full-time personnel. It had just run amok. It was just a terrible situation. Mr. d'Ombrain also raised the issue of addressing grievances on a timely basis. There is also the protection of the merit principle, which is one of the critical elements of this bill. Are we in a position to say with some enthusiasm that the bill as it exists, making a modest step, is enough to give the confidence level necessary to the personnel of the public service to believe that merit will in fact be operated on an appropriate basis, that staffing will be handled on a timely basis, and that grievances will be dealt with promptly?

Mr. Donald Savoie: With regard to proposed section 41 on page 128, I want to make it very clear that I wouldn't suggest for half a moment that ministerial staff cannot become competent public servants. In fact, we have a history of very competent public servants who've served in ministerial offices. I want to stress that. The point I'm making here is that they should enter the public service like everybody else.

º (1645)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Through the front door.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes.

On the staffing action, I think the best answer to that is that the message that will go to the human resources community, broadly defined, is that the bill, if it goes forward, is better than the status quo. It is a modest but important step in the right direction. That message, in my view, is terribly important. I think it'll be welcomed. The public service is a large body. Some will agree with it. Some will want faster action. There will be some concerns about some of the provisions in the bill. I don't think you can talk about the public service as one entity. In my view, the message of going forward, of breaking from the status quo, and of moving in the right direction will be a welcome one.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I just thought of one other item, Mr. Chairman. It might be useful to get Mr. Savoie's comment. When a meeting of deputy ministers is called, the president of the Public Service Commission would be at that meeting. Is that correct?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes. There is a weekly breakfast meeting of deputy ministers, and I understand that--

Mr. Paul Szabo: So they're dealt with at the equivalent level.

Given that you're suggesting that the next logical step would be further clarification of the role of the Public Service Commission and in fact putting it more in the role of protector of merit, a non-partisan environment, etc., and less in the management role, do you think we have to start a process earlier than five years from now to consult with the Public Service Commission with regard to how it sees its future evolvement in terms of the overall management and administration of the public service?

Mr. Donald Savoie: The answer is yes. In fact, I would hope that there would be some ongoing consultation between your committee and the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

Mr. Donald Savoie: It's not a light switch that you turn on and off.

The Chair: Contrary to personal experience.

Madam Bennett.

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

Professor Savoie, the Social Science Employees Association proposed an amendment so that non-partisan staff of the House of Commons, Senate, and Library of Parliament would be able to enter closed competitions, being that it's the same union. Some feel that it would provide a refreshing breeze through the public service to include people who actually understand Parliament and have had some different sorts of experiences. Would you agree with that, or do you think they should have to apply in open competition, the way it is at the present time? Some have said that the present system, whereby people having a close personal relationship with a member of the public service would be invited by them to be seconded and would then go into a permanent position, may not be best in terms of an objective report to Parliament and that if there were more toing and froing, that might be healthier in terms of a real understanding of the role of Parliament and the role of public service.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Provided they go through the front door, I would have no problem with that. You did specify non-partisan employees. I've come across several of the research staff of the Library of Parliament. I think there are about 80 of them. They do work in health care and so on. They're very competent and knowledgeable, and they have a sense of Parliament. I see no reason they shouldn't apply. In fact, it might be a welcome sight.

º (1650)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: You would be comfortable with them entering a closed competition within the public service as opposed to having to apply like all other Canadians.

Mr. Donald Savoie: If you're asking me whether the research staff of the Library of Parliament that I've come across are competent and dedicated, the answer is yes. If you're asking me whether they are hard-working, the answer is absolutely yes.

The Chair: Careful, we have one here. He's already a little obstreperous.

Mr. Donald Savoie: If I can add a comment, I don't want to stroke his ego too much, but I'm absolutely amazed at the quantity and quality of work they do with only 80 people.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: This is for another committee. In terms of rebalancing Parliament and government, do you think we would be well-advised to have a larger research capacity at the Library of Parliament? This is quite separate from the bill.

Mr. Donald Savoie: No question. In fact, I've already published in this area, and the answer is yes.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It has been suggested that the PCO could be a little smaller.

The Chair: If we really want to rebalance.

An hon. member: He hasn't published in that area yet.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Donald Savoie: I'm sure they could lose a bit of weight.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: This bill is not clear about the PCO and the Prime Minister's office. It's confusing to me. Do you think that we could ever get that straightened out?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Could you repeat the question? I'm not sure I understood.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: There seems to be a blurring between the Prime Minister's office and the PCO in terms of appointments. The order-in-council appointment says that as the Clerk of the Privy Council.... Is that clean enough?

Mr. Donald Savoie: There will always be a very close working relationship between the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's office. In fact, one of the three roles of the Privy Council Office is to be the department to the Prime Minister. I'm not sure that I would agree with the premise of your question. I would simply add that if you want to consider that problem, I'm not sure I would do it in the context of this bill.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thanks very much.

The Chair: I should have introduced Madam Bennett as the chair of the Library of Parliament committee. You're doing a two-for-one in this particular meeting.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Oh, I see.

The Chair: Mr. Epp, did you have a question?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

The Chair: Then I'll go to Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you again for meeting with us this way.

I have a curiosity with regard to the whole process of hiring people. This bill is high on the issue of merit. It talks of employment equity in the same breath as hiring on merit. To me there are times when those may be contradictory, and I'd like your comments about that. If an employment equity objective collides with a merit objective, with merit being defined as competence to do the job, how do you reconcile those two?

Mr. Donald Savoie: I'm not sure that they're always in conflict.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I'm sure they're not. But when they are.

Mr. Donald Savoie: We're talking about relative merit here as opposed to absolute merit. I think that's an important distinction. Under the proposed legislation they will establish the basic qualifications that are required to enter the public service. As I understand it, the deputy minister in a government department may add certain qualifications. On that basis they will establish a list of people who qualify because they meet those basic qualifications. I think if that's respected, it can work.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm getting to issues such as male-female balance. From a straight merit position, I don't think you'd have very many positions in the civil service where you would specify that this position must be filled by a male. Likewise, there shouldn't be too many where you could specify that it can only be filled by a female. In most instances, it seems to me, people are competent irrespective of their gender to do a job that's available. When that collides, how do you reconcile it?

º (1655)

Mr. Donald Savoie: I think you'd have to bring forward a specific case.

If I can bring this to a personal level, a month ago I visited eight Mi'kmaq communities, and I came across federal public servants who are Mi'kmaq. I can tell you that I was impressed by their competence. They were very qualified. They met the basic qualifications. They work in their own communities. I was quite proud of that. They applied for a competition. You may well say that there were other people who were equally qualified. The point I'm making is that in a case such as that, if the Mi'kmaq is equally qualified, then I see no reason that Mi'kmaq could not be hired.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would have no problem with that. That's not what I'm talking about.

Mr. Donald Savoie: We may not have a problem here.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm talking about the fact that on those occasions when they collide, how do you reconcile the two?

I've been an employer as well, and I have had people from all of the groups that are mentioned as being discriminated against in my employ, or at least I was responsible for them. I didn't pay their salary out of my pocket, put it that way. I was a civil servant who was hiring other civil servants. Invariably, you look at the job requirements and you say, who fills these job requirements? You tend in those situations to be colour-blind.You don't look at the race of the person or their gender. You look at whether they can do the job.

What happens if an employment equity objective says that in this particular case you must hire a female because they're underrepresented, but in terms of straight competence for the job and merit there is a male that is superior to the best female who has applied? What do you do?

Mr. Donald Savoie: I'm not trying to avoid the question. I'm not sure that we're dealing with very many specific cases. We have managers in government, deputy ministers on down, who are paid very big bucks to manage, and part of their responsibility is to have proper judgment. I would only hope, as a taxpayer, that they would exercise that proper judgment. So when a case is brought in front of them, I presume that to the best of their judgment they deal with it.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm sure that all members of Parliament get people coming to their offices, I certainly do, saying, I wanted to apply for this job. I'm qualified for it, and I'd like to do it. But I'm told that I don't need to apply because I'm not in one of the target groups right now. So I can't do that. One of them had as a career goal since he was a little boy to be in the RCMP, because his father and his grandfather had been in the RCMP. That was what he wanted to do. But when he went to apply, he was told that right now they weren't hiring white males. So he was told, basically, to go away. To me that is an abrogation of the merit principle. He was a very sharp lad, he had done very well in school, and he was very physical. He was in even better shape than I am.

An hon. member: That's not hard.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ken Epp: He had all of the merits for the job, but he was turned down because of this.

Relating back to Bill C-25, the bill that's before us, do you feel that issues such as that are properly addressed by this bill?

Mr. Donald Savoie: I'm not sure that you could ever legally address every facet of the question you've raised. There has to be some managerial judgment. I don't think you could ever carve out a bill that would deal with every case of the kind you've raised. I don't think it's possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Tirabassi.

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

To Mr. Savoie, welcome.

We've heard from many witnesses, and there seems to be definite agreement that what is currently in place is not working, because it's cumbersome and decisions are made as a result of jurisprudence. I think Mr. d'Ombrain put it so well. What has happened over time is like barnacles on the hull of a ship. This bill sets the clock back to zero. Whether it will work and to what extent it will improve the public service will depend on a cultural change. This has been the subject of questioning by members, myself included. I'd like to see a more tied-down definition of this, a better understanding of the relationship between this body and this body and so on and so forth. We can't account for every eventuality. I'd like to hear your comments on what it's going to take for this bill to succeed, as opposed to what's there now.

» (1700)

Mr. Donald Savoie: I have several comments. I'd like to disagree with you on one point, when you say that the present system is not working. The present system is working. It's not working as well as it should. All of us, me included, have a tendency to put the public service and government next to an ideal model. Plato couldn't figure it out, nor can I, nor will somebody 50 years from now. The model we have is not totally broken. It is working. It's not working as efficiently as one might hope, and the purpose of this bill is to improve that. I think the bill in front of you does that.

There is always a struggle between giving the manager sufficient flexibility to manage the operation of his or her department and having centrally prescribed rules by Parliament and government to ensure a professional, non-partisan public service. So it's always a struggle to hit the right spot. The right spot is never static. In 1918 they moved that spot in front of having centrally prescribed rules. We've now moved away. Are we hitting the spot just about right? In my view, yes. Ideally, I would wish that we could move a bit more on the flexibility angle, but the public service, which is an important institution, is not prepared to do that.

How is it going to work? It's going to require a lot of goodwill. It's going to require a willingness five years from now to look at this bill again and to look at what has been put in place and say, are we ready to move that point of reference further to the flexibility end? My hope is that the answer would be yes. If there's goodwill and good judgment, it will work.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Very good.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

Next is Monsieur Lanctôt and then Mr. Cullen.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask you two small questions, Mr. Savoie.

First of all, you are saying here that we should tell public servants that this is a good bill. Public service representatives appeared before us in succession telling us that many changes had to be made to the bill.

Secondly, what changes to the bill would allow us to take a further step without jeopardizing reaching the government's target, which is to move forward quickly with the hiring of public servants and the improvement of the public service? That is a very simple question.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But the answer is most probably complex.

Mr. Donald Savoie: First of all, you say that witnesses told you that the bill was not ambitious enough. Is that what you are telling me?

I wish to underscore the fact that the public service is an entity made up of more than 200 000 employees and that they will not all agree with each other. It is impossible for the 240 000 employees and all of the unions to be happy. That is but a dream. To my mind, that is a model that simply does not exist. There are therefore people who do not agree on certain things. If you had complete freedom to redefine the bill, there would still be people who would be opposed to certain things. It is the same thing as in any democracy. Therefore, I do not believe it is possible to arrive at a bill that would be ideal for everyone.

You also asked if we might not go a little bit further. We could obviously go a little further, but not at this stage, in my view.

» (1705)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to ask you another small question.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I read a few minutes ago what in my view is a description of the ideal model.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We want to change the framework and to have a non-partisan public service. Other countries have enacted protection for whistle-blowers. Have you examined this aspect and have you expressed your opinion on this matter?

Mr. Donald Savoie: No.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You have not examined this aspect.

Mr. Donald Savoie: No, I was not asked to.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do you have any ideas in this regard?

Mr. Donald Savoie: When you read my five documents, you will see that I make no mention whatsoever of this matter.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Have you given it any thought?

Mr. Donald Savoie: More or less.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Might we hear your opinion?

Mr. Donald Savoie: I believe that with the Access to Information Act there is now a system in place as well as agents. Each department has an agent to whom certain things can be revealed. I will not go further than that. It is my personal view, but I must say that I have not given the matter much thought. I know that a lot of material has been written about it. It is not by me, but there is a lot of it out there.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cullen.

[Translation]

M. Roy Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Savoie, thank you very much for having agreed to participate in this meeting.

[English]

Mr. Savoie, I think you heard the question I put to Mr. d'Ombrain about the appointment of the president of the Public Service Commission. I'll repeat it. There has been much discussion about the Public Service Commission being somewhat of a hybrid because it has executive and parliamentary responsibilities. The proposition is that the president of the Public Service Commission be appointed by Parliament and the two commissioners be appointed, as they are today, by order in council or to actually split the executive responsibilities from the parliamentary responsibilities. I'd appreciate your views on that particular matter.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I think you're asking me two questions. One is whether it's appropriate to split the executive and audit functions. My answer is yes. Is it appropriate at this point? By all accounts it's a bit too early. I hope that five years from now we will be there.

The second question you asked was about how the appointments are made. I wish I could be as clever as Nick d'Ombrain was. His answer was very clever. I was here when he gave it. I'm not sure you need to put it in the bill. But with a bit of creative thinking and goodwill on the part of the government and your committee, you can go a long way in figuring that one out. I would only repeat what Nick answered.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Do you have any creative thinking that you could offer the committee?

Mr. Donald Savoie: I think that the chair should sit down with the President of the Treasury Board and say, can we have a bit of creative thinking here? This committee would like to be consulted, not informed.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Before the fact, rather than after the fact.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Sure.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a second question. It has to do with managing issues horizontally across government, which is an issue this committee is examining. I'm wondering if this particular bill makes any progress at all. Does it touch on this issue at all? Does it add any value to that process?

Mr. Donald Savoie: No, I don't think the bill deals with that.

I think you've raised a very important issue. If you're talking about the public service and the morale issue, not being able to attract competent public servants, and so on, it's not just the length of time for staffing, it's to provide a work environment that's stimulating and fun and where they can be empowered to actually take a project and run with it. At the moment it's very difficult for individual public servants to see themselves in their projects. We've created a horizontal policy-making process. In fact, I would go even further and say that it's a decision-making process. We haven't quite figured out where individual public servants fit into that. I think it's an important issue for the government and for your committee. But this bill doesn't deal with that.

» (1710)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

The Chair: I think it may be argued by some that we've created a horizontal non-decision-making process. But I agree with you that it's not part of this bill.

I want to just press you a little bit, Professor Savoie. I want to be precise in the first part of this question. We are told repeatedly that we have the best public service in the world, and I wouldn't want to argue with a portion of that. Certainly, I think that the work Canadians receive from public servants in very complex and difficult times is exemplary. Every time we look at change, one of the comments is, we have the best in the world, so why would we possibly want to tinker with it? The world is a big place. Certainly, some of the problems that are faced by the majority of countries in the world, such as corruption, along many other problems one could enumerate, are not problems that are visited to any degree in Canada. But if we were to compare ourselves to the top 20 or so, I'm not so certain that we could feel quite as proud as perhaps we have in the past.

I want to enlarge upon that a bit. I notice that we have a public service that is increasingly narrowing itself and increasing its presence in the national capital region and moving out of the regions. We have a public service that at the higher levels is making it difficult for people from the regions to move into positions of senior management, and it is building those strictures in. We talk about regional alienation in this country. I think it could be argued that the actions at the senior levels of the public service fuel that.

I note here that in this bill they talk about employment based on merit. It says “Appointments...shall be made on the basis of merit and must be free from political influence.” If you were to examine cases here, you'd find that they are largely free of political influence. But I would argue that they're not free of bureaucratic influence. I think there's as much bureaucratic patronage in this country as there is political. In fact, I would say more.

I'd like you to help me put into context this reference to the best public service in the world.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I think I counted seven questions.

The Chair: That's my easy starting question. The difficult one comes next.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I'm one of the guilty ones because in a submission I tabled in front of your committee I said that I took great pride in the fact that Canada has one of the best public services in the world. Let me comment on that. I say that because I've worked in Africa, Latin America, and eastern Europe. I can tell you that, relatively speaking, Canada is blessed with a good public service. You're asking me, is it the best in the world? There was a golden era--Lester Pearson, Escott Reid, and Gordon Robertson--where I think our public service would stack up against the best in the world. Are we still there? I don't know. It's iffy, I suppose.

I can tell you that when I go to Britain and meet with public servants in the course of my work, I find that they're also pretty darn competent. The British public service is highly competent. They're surprised that we would think that we have the best public service, because they actually think that they have the best public service. A number of Americans think that they have the best, and I'm sure that the French are not far behind. So it becomes a bit iffy at that level. The point I would make is that our public service ranks up there. It is a darn sight better than the majority. Is it the best in the world? I wouldn't argue that, but it's one of the best.

You're asking someone who has spent a lifetime writing about regionalism, public administration, and regional economic development. You're asking someone who has committed most of his working life to research in this area. If you're asking me whether the federal public service is sufficiently sensitive to regional circumstances, the answer is a resounding no. If you're asking me whether it is healthy for this country, as broad and as large as it is, to concentrate the policy capacity of the federal public service in Ottawa alone, the answer is no. If you're asking me whether by doing that we're giving a free hand to the provinces to say that they are the only legitimate spokespersons for the regions, yes, we're giving them that. The policy wisdom of the federal public service should be not concentrated solely in Ottawa. I made the comment a half hour ago that the Bible says that the wise men came from the east. There could be a lot of wise public servants who came from the east. In a more serious vein, I think it's high time that we look at the federal public service in terms of regional circumstances. If we don't have a Senate that works on behalf of the regions and if we have a national public service that's concentrated and hidebound in Ottawa, we have a problem. You're asking the wrong person, if you like, to comment on that, because I have a very strong view.

With regard to bureaucratic patronage, I have problems with that. I work in the world of academe, and often we hire people who look like us. There's an old saying that when you look in the mirror, you like what you see. It's probably only natural that a manager would want to hire somebody that he or she can work well with. The question is, would a senior manager hire somebody just to engage in bureaucratic patronage and not hire the best person he or she could get to run a program? I rather think not.

» (1715)

The Chair: I should point out that when the three wise men came from the east, they had to go to the west to find enlightenment. So you just keep looking, and you'll get there eventually.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I don't recall that in the Bible, Mr. Chairman, but that's okay.

The Chair: It's in the appendix.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I react a bit to what I see in this bill. At the start of this we're talking about a model that says that because the world is moving a lot faster and we need to be a lot more flexible, we're going to put more authority in the hands of the deputy heads. Personally, I think that's a smart move. I think that whole direction is. We're going to turn the Public Service Commission into an auditing function that will specialize in human resource management and, in one model, will act like the Auditor General, coming in not to dictate what goes on on a day-to-day basis, because an auditor doesn't come in and tell you that, but to look for compliance and identify areas where there are problems for Parliament to deal with. But instead of going all the way to that model, we have stopped along the way. We said that we're still going to keep, at least on the surface, authority in the hands of the Public Service Commission, although we're going to expect them to delegate it immediately, and the head of the Public Service Commission is going to be accountable to the very people it's auditing. The Auditor General is not accountable to the executive. The Auditor General is accountable to the House of Commons.

Mr. Donald Savoie: I would debate that.

The Chair: Maybe you should help us with that debate, because that's very central to the discussion that Mr. Cullen is raising.

The access-to-information commissioner is appointed by order in council and is approved by the House of Commons, as is the privacy commissioner and the language commissioner. The Auditor General is done through a special hiring process involving all members of the House, but approved by the House.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Mr. Chairman, there are two issues here: one is hiring, and the second is accountability. I don't quarrel with your statement that the Auditor General is hired through a different process. I haven't quite figured out where--

The Chair: Are you arguing that the Auditor General is accountable to the government?

Mr. Donald Savoie: No, I argue that it's accountable perhaps to itself on a good day.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: In this model the head of the Public Service Commission is accountable to the government, and there's a suggestion by Mr. Cullen that we make the office accountable to the House in the same way that the other House officers are. Do you have a comment on that?

Mr. Donald Savoie: Yes, I have a comment on that. Mr. Cullen has a very valid point. In the document I prepared for the task force my views are fairly clear on that. I can read from that document, which has been made available to you. I say that the Public Service Commission should have an audit function, which would be extremely important for the health of the public service. It should have a special status as an agency of Parliament. It should speak to the values of the public service and its concerns and challenges in its role in a democratic society in building Canada. Its status as an agency of Parliament would enable it to speak to Parliament, the government, career officials, and Canadians. In my ideal model I join the member of your committee who says that it should be an agency of Parliament. That's my idea, and I hope that in time we would go there.

The problem, however, is that under this bill the Public Service Commission would retain an executive function. If it's to retain an important executive function, I think the government should certainly have a say in appointing the chair of the Public Service Commission. That's the issue.

The Chair: So Mr. Cullen may need more than one amendment.

One final question, and then we're going to wrap up. It goes back to the cultural issues. You and I have discussed this in other forums. In an era of greater information availability and openness and a system that's driving toward greater accountability, there is what is often described by many deputies as the corrosive culture of secrecy that exists in the public service, where even innocuous things become important, not because they are important but the very fact that one attempts to keep them secret gives them greater importance than there would be if we had a much more open debate. I'm reminded of the way we used to deal with the budget discussions in large part.

I notice that in this bill, although it's a carry forward from the old bill and is not new, every new public servant swears an oath that he or she will not disclose any matter that comes to their knowledge. They don't make an oath to the country.They don't even actually make an oath to the government. They make an oath to faithfully and honestly fulfill the duties that devolve on them by reason of their employment, which I think is appropriate, and they make an oath that they will not disclose. How do we reconcile this issue of the difficult, almost unnecessary levels of secrecy? You mentioned the access act. It has been demonstrated that often if you ask for information that can be found on a website, you have to go through the ATIP process, which is time-consuming and costly. If we're going to make that cultural change that exposes the actions of the government, do we have to start to think through how we're conditioning people and how we're building, reinforcing, or creating this culture from the get-go?

» (1720)

Mr. Donald Savoie: You've raised a very complex question, and I would beg to come back and explore that with you and your committee. It is a very complex issue. If I can plug my coming book, I have a book coming out in the fall that deals with this quite extensively. You will find that I'm perhaps of the old school because I think that a government needs to have secrets. I'd be happy to come back and explain that in front of your committee at some point. It goes to the heart of whether the public service is loyal to the government of the day. I'm of the school that thinks that the public service should be loyal to the government of the day. I'm very much of that school, and I'd be willing to explain why and what it means.

» (1725)

The Chair: Mr. Savoie, we are at the end of our time. I know that you have expressed interest, and there is considerable interest around this table, in coming to Ottawa to meet with the committee on the role of the committee and some of the estimates activities we are undertaking. We will follow up on that at the earliest convenience. I thank you very much for your appearance here today.

Mr. Donald Savoie: Thank you. Merci.

Good luck in your work.

The Chair: Members, we are adjourned until the business meeting at 3:30 tomorrow. The notice will be in your offices as to the room.