PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 1542

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CA)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I call the meeting to order.

Today we have a number of motions, but until such time as we have a full quorum, I'll leave that. If we do happen to have a full quorum, I may interrupt proceedings and go for it.

By the way, for your information, the Auditor General will be tabling a report on the Economic Development Corporation's environmental review framework. They would like to do that on Tuesday, May 15. They're going to table it in the House at 10 a.m., and right after that they want to have a briefing session. But there really is no committee to refer that particular report to. They're asking the Speaker for a briefing meeting and they're suggesting that I chair that meeting. Does anybody have an objection to that?

There being none, I would therefore suggest to the interim Auditor General that you write to the Speaker suggesting that I chair that meeting, and proceed on that basis.

That being done, we'll move to the basic business of today, which is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 9, “Streamlining the Human Resource Management Regime: A Study of Changing Roles and Responsibilities”, of the April 2000 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Our witnesses today are the interim Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Sheila Fraser; Ms. Maria Barrados, Assistant Auditor General; and Ms. Kathryn Elliott, the Principal of the Audit Operations Branch. From the Public Service Commission of Canada we have Mr. Scott Serson, the President; Armelita Armit, Vice-President of Staffing and Recruitment Programs Branch; and Mr. Douglas Rimmer, Vice-President, Policy Research and Communications Branch.

So without further ado, we will ask Ms. Fraser to give us an opening statement.

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Interim Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank you and the committee for this opportunity to present the results of our audit of the post-secondary recruitment program of the federal public service reported in chapter 21 of the 2000 report. We will also briefly discuss the role of the Public Service Commission of Canada, as outlined in chapter 9 on roles and responsibilities in human resource management.

• 1545

As you mentioned, I am accompanied today by Maria Barrados, who is assistant auditor general, and Kathryn Elliott, the principal who led this audit.

The post-secondary recruitment program is managed by the Public Service Commission, but other players are involved, including Treasury Board Secretariat and departments and agencies. The complexities of the relationships we outlined in chapter 9 are illustrated in the delivery of the program, which is shown in our audit of the post-secondary recruitment program.

The Public Service Commission is an independent agency reporting to Parliament annually through a designated minister. It has the exclusive authority for appointments to and within the public service, and related responsibilities for recourse of such appointments. Its mandate is to ensure a highly competent, non-partisan, professional public service that is appointed on the basis of merit and is representative of the population it serves. It has other responsibilities for training and employment equity delegated to it.

The post-secondary recruitment program is the government's main recruitment vehicle for a wide variety of entry-level professional positions. Traditionally, the public service has hired its future leaders at the entry level and has developed them from within. In 1998-99 the post-secondary recruitment program received some 11,500 applications from graduates, and it referred some 6,400 for further assessment. Of those, about 800 received appointments. Those who were found to be qualified but were not hired were not retained in inventories for consideration in future vacancies.

[Translation]

The public service is facing a significant recruitment challenge. Executives, professionals and managers will be hard hit by the retirement of the aging workforce, the baby boomers in the next five to ten years. The increasing competition for qualified candidates from the private sector and other public sectors, a shrinking labour pool, and the difficulty in retaining certain types of employees compound this situation. Staff shortages are already affecting services to Canadians in areas such as tax administration, financial management, and health and safety programs, as we have recently reported.

A major weakness identified in our audit of the Post Secondary Recruitment program was human resource planning and general forecasting for recruitment. The number and type of employees needed for the present and future is not well identified for the public service as a whole by the Treasury Board or for individual departments. We note that an exception was found with Statistics Canada, which did have strong forecasting capacity.

Without a clear picture of needs, it is difficult to establish a recruitment strategy and appropriate targets for programs under the large umbrella of the Post-Secondary Recruitment Program. Recruitment planning was reactive and ad hoc, responding to the immediate situation. Because of the lack of overall targets and unclear responsibilities for recruitment, we are concerned about the government's ability to address the recruitment priority.

[English]

We have identified problems with the management of the program itself. As seen by the recommendations in the chapter, these can be fixed without legislative changes. These include becoming a more aggressive recruiter by improving candidates' perceptions about the government as a valued career choice in order to reach the best candidates; increasing the program's use by departments and coordinating on-campus recruitment visits with other departments; improving opportunities for recruitment for positions in the regions; maintaining inventories of pre-screened candidates for referrals to other vacancies that arise; improving the flexibility and timeliness of the program; and assessing the results of campaigns and using these results to improve recruitment efforts.

In chapter 9 and in this chapter, we have expressed concerns about reporting by the Public Service Commission to Parliament on the health of the merit system. We expect to see improved reporting on the results of all programs, including the post-secondary recruitment program, and an assessment of the ability of the public service to respond to challenges.

• 1550

The post-secondary recruitment program is a merit-based recruitment program advertised across the country, and it recruits qualified people for the public service. We believe its use needs to be significantly increased and its management improved to address, in part, the large expected number of people leaving the public service.

Mr. Chair, we would be happy to answer the committee's questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.

We'll now turn to Mr. Scott Serson, the president of the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Serson, you have a fairly lengthy opening statement. I mentioned to you earlier that you're going to condense that and summarize it, so we'll turn it over to you.

Mr. Scott Serson (President, Public Service Commission of Canada): I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, am happy to be here and to have the opportunity to talk to the committee today.

[Translation]

By way of introduction, I'd like to mention that, besides myself, the Public Service Commission has two other commissioners, namely Michelle Chartrand, who couldn't be present today as she has a previous engagement touring the Atlantic region, and Nurjehan Mawani, who will join the Public Service Commission in just a couple of weeks.

[English]

As Sheila said, the commission is an independent parliamentary agency that ensures that staffing and recruitment for the public service are conducted according to the principle of merit.

The protection of merit remains our number one concern. We believe this principle is crucial to an effective public service. We have noted over the last ten years the number of times the former Auditor General has commented on the fact that Canada's federal public service is one of the most respected, most professional public services in the world. We believe this is a direct result of the application of values that have served us so well over the years.

[Translation]

You have asked that we take some time today to discuss the former Auditor General's recently expressed concerns regarding the management of the human resource system and, more specifically, the post-secondary recruitment program. An observation here is that the post-secondary recruitment program is only one way to recruit the next generation of public servants.

[English]

For example, new recruits are also drawn through our day-to-day recruitment efforts, which are promoted on our website. We also have student programs like the federal student work experience program and co-op programs that allow students with significant experience in the federal government to be bridged to full-time employment.

In addition, our research shows that as the expected departures from the public service mount, pressure for experienced staff will increase the age of new hires. This means a significant portion of experienced, mid-career professionals also need to be recruited, not just young graduates. In short, our view is that we cannot use a “one size fits all” solution to meet all our recruitment needs.

Regarding the post-secondary recruitment program, most of the recommendations that the Auditor General makes actually reinforce actions already set out in a recruitment action plan that we developed prior to the release of the December 2000 report. Because it was an important conclusion for us, I'd like to note that the Auditor General found that the post-secondary recruitment program is indeed appointing competent candidates.

In terms of the other concerns that were raised, the PSC is working closely with departments to help them plan and forecast effectively for their recruitment needs, by providing such services as modelling and demographic analysis. This kind of planning allows departments to make strategic use of the post-secondary recruitment program. By September of this year, we will make the program an ongoing, year-round recruitment program, which was another recommendation of the Auditor General.

We've formed a committee of departmental recruitment champions at the senior level in order to enhance departmental recruitment planning and to assist us in developing targeted recruitment strategies. And we've already seen a significant increase in departmental participation, from eight departments in the winter 2000 campaign to seventeen in the winter 2001 campaign.

• 1555

[Translation]

You have asked that we take some time today to discuss the Auditor General's recently expressed concerns regarding the management of the human resource system.

I can tell you that we agree with much of what he has said. As an example, the former auditor general has suggested that deputy ministers need to be more accountable for their management of human resources and that their responsibilities, and I quote, “should be set out formally in the context of their overall management responsibility”.

[English]

We share that vision of a staffing system where more authority will be conferred on deputies, one where this authority is balanced with effective oversight and support to ensure merit-based staffing remains a core principle.

One issue, Mr. Chairman, in parliamentary discussions that we followed with interest over the recent months is the topic of area of selection. This is a policy that allows some job opportunities to be available only to people living in specified geographic areas. This, for us, is a classic example of the challenge of balancing competing values, in this case, on the one hand, access to public service jobs for Canadians versus, on the other hand, the principles of flexibility and efficiency that the former Auditor General has discussed in his streamlining report.

Let me begin by saying that although our view is that this policy complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our area of selection policy is under review. We would like to move away from the use of geographically based areas of selection. Our review is examining the operational, resource, and service issues that will need to be addressed to do this. The issue, in many cases, is managing the volumes of applications in a way that gets value for money for Canadians; therefore, the commission would be interested in your suggestions for this particular challenge, and we'll be seeking the views and guidance of parliamentarians as we seek to find solutions in the area.

So I'd like to thank you once again for the opportunity to appear. We believe it's crucial that parliamentarians provide us with their views on the important issues we're going to touch upon today.

[Translation]

I will now be happy to answer your questions or comments. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Serson.

The full text of the written submission by Mr. Serson will be deposited with the clerk of the committee and available if anybody should ever wish to obtain a copy of the full remarks, which Mr. Serson just summarized.

Mr. Pallister, eight minutes, please.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CA): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for those presentations. I have a few questions in regard to the regional fairness question you alluded to briefly in your comments, sir.

I was noticing in your recruitment numbers that for the post-secondary recruitment program you have approximately 90% participation from either the NCR or from Ontario and Quebec. Is this of concern to you? Is this an area you want to see addressed? And if so, how?

Mr. Scott Serson: It is very much a concern to us. Basically, we have been talking to deputy ministers and federal regional councils about our need to get the post-secondary recruitment numbers up in the regions. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, it's interesting. There was a report just released earlier this week, I believe, the Council for Canadian Unity survey, and it said that only one of the ten provinces felt that our federal government was treating them respectfully and nine out of ten gave a failing grade. And I think here we have something that fuels the sense of alienation in certain parts of the country.

Mr. Scott Serson: I should say, Mr. Pallister, that doesn't mean we aren't hiring in those regions. But we could be doing a good deal of hiring on a different kind of basis.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Right.

• 1600

Mr. Scott Serson: Much of our hiring these days moves from casual employment to term employment and then ultimately to indeterminate employment. That may be what is taking place in the regions.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The interim Auditor General commented that you're doing recruiting exercises. Is that campus recruiting?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Is this one of the areas that you're going to be addressing or upgrading? What kinds of activities are you doing in terms of campus recruitment that would assist in making these numbers appear to be, at the very least, fairer to Canadian graduates?

Mr. Scott Serson: Keep in mind that, as the Auditor General pointed out, we go out and do the job of finding candidates, but it's departments that provide us the jobs to fill. They place the job orders, if you will.

We are active on all campuses across the country. I think my colleagues would be prepared to provide the exact numbers. But, for instance, there are 70, 80, or 90 university career fairs annually across the country. So we're very much present.

Two weeks ago, I was in British Columbia. I took the time to meet with a group of students at Simon Fraser University to talk to them about employment in the public service. We are very much present. But we're also conscious that when we go on campus, those students want to know what our hiring record is in that university, and we have to get those regional numbers up.

Mr. Brian Pallister: My understanding is approximately two-thirds of public servants don't serve in the capital region, and that seems at odds, at least on the surface of it, with the numbers here.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Could you clarify that?

Mr. Scott Serson: I think what I'm saying is that we have a job. We have emerged from program review, where we have to acknowledge that managers were not focused on the job of hiring and recruiting.

Now we're confronted with this demographic challenge, and we certainly have a job to do at the commission in encouraging them to turn their minds to that. I think what the Auditor General is suggesting, and we agree, is that we have to be out there talking to regional managers, saying, use this program to hire new graduates. We are doing that, making it a priority.

Mr. Brian Pallister: So we've addressed and touched on at least the regional issues, the regional fairness or sense of fairness that's so important to Canadians. But what about the structural planning that's necessary?

I know this is true certainly in other areas of our country, but among the baby boomers, and so on, people graduating to the superior opportunities provided by retirement are in abundance. What are we going to do in this organization to make sure the planning is done? This is going to be clearly an urgent area that needs addressing in the next while.

Mr. Scott Serson: That's been a significant preoccupation for me. In all my dialogue with public service managers, the first thing I emphasize is the importance of human resource planning linked to business planning.

The Treasury Board and ourselves have put together a centre for demographic analysis so that rather than, as in the past, producing two sets of numbers on the demographic needs of the public service, we are putting together a unified picture of what those demographic challenges are. We have a research shop that provides demographic analysis to departments. I think the latest count was that ten departments availed themselves of those services. We are doing research on this issue.

We've done one piece of research that we could shortly make available to the committee on our student hires, because we feel they are the ambassadors. By their experience with the public service they become ambassadors back in the universities on the quality of public service employment. We have research underway to survey new hires. It's all about looking at what makes the public service a more attractive employer so we can relay that message to line departments and they can factor that into their planning as well.

• 1605

Mr. Brian Pallister: In the short time I have remaining for my questions, it probably will be difficult to address this side issue, I guess, of designating a territory from which people have to come in order to work for our civil service. My question is, how is that defensible in an era when we have this instant communication access across the country, this ability to promote jobs? You can talk about merit, but how can you create an atmosphere in our civil service where merit prevails when you limit the intake of applicants to a certain physical territory of our country?

Mr. Scott Serson: What we try to do, Mr. Pallister—and this mechanism is authorized by our legislation, the Public Service Employment Act, which allows us to set these kinds of limitations—

The Chair: But that was back in 1962 or thereabouts.

Mr. Scott Serson: No, I agree with that, but—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Allowing it and defending it are two different things.

Mr. Scott Serson: And I'm not going to defend it other than on the basis of the balance I talked about. We use it as a tool to manage volume.

Mr. Brian Pallister: To make sure you don't get too many applications.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes. In other words—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Then would it be fair—sorry to cut you off, but I'm going to have time for only a couple more questions—

The Chair: No, you don't have time for a couple more questions.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, it's really very important, because wouldn't it be more fair to limit the number of applications from the capital region and then allow people in the rest of the country to apply rather than to say that people in the capital region are the only ones who can apply? It seems to me to be common sense.

Mr. Scott Serson: Those are issues we're going to have to look at. What we do now is look at the nature of the job. I think we did a survey of the use of our website over a one-year period, and 20% of the jobs advertised on the website were national in scope. There we would be looking at professional categories, where there may be a scarcity of activity.

I'll give you another quick example. Recently we looked at the need for a clerk for the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown. We limited the area of selection to Charlottetown and the area directly around it, and we still had 810 applications, which we then had to screen and assess on the basis of the best qualified. That becomes a very labour-intensive job, and it becomes, after time, a resource issue.

So we're looking for solutions, but they're not easy to find.

The Chair: Well, I think we'll have to find them.

Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière-L'Érable, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Mr. Serson. How did the Public Service Commission of Canada manage to find itself in such a situation, such an obvious lack of new blood? Did you have a planning policy? Did you have statistics to measure the aging of the workforce, of public servants, and did you have as well an overview of all the new manpower that was coming up with the evolution of our society? Did you have a comprehensive view of the situation? Did you anticipate this? I know that severe cuts have been made in the public service in the mid-1990s. Is the situation in which we find ourselves a result of these various factors? I would like to know whether you had any auditing mechanisms, any measuring tools before you came up with the findings that were presented to us a couple of weeks ago by the Auditor General.

Mr. Scott Serson: I believe that during the program review, we had some cuts and other concerns as well. At the end of the program review process, the public service began to think about the next generation of public servants and we implemented programs for senior managers.

• 1610

In the last two years, I believe that with the general increase in economic activity, we have had shortcomings in some areas, but in my view, this is no crisis. We have some work to do, but mostly in specific situations. Here in Ottawa, we have a problem at the level of engineers and perhaps nurses as well. We have a national problem and the same problems are apparent in the federal government.

We are trying to increase our capacity in the area of demographic planning, but we will probably have to create more direct links with departments, because we can have the data, but we must check the validity of these data by asking people in the departments. A person may be able to retire, but we don't know whether he or she will do so unless we put the question directly.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you have a good cooperation from the various departments and do you have the money required to resolve that situation—I'm not talking about a crisis? Do you have a broad enough cooperation? We are often asking public servants, people such as you, to resolve some problems but they do not have the money required to do the job. Given the findings that have been made by the Auditor General and considering what you have been telling us, do you have the ear of the present government in order to resolve that situation that concerns us all?

Mr. Scott Serson: We undeniably have the support of the Clerk of the Privy Council and benefit from his leadership, and I believe that we have good will on the part of deputy ministers, but we have to work on this issue of planning, because during the program review, we did not need to do any planning. However, it has now become necessary to do so and I believe that the expertise does not exist in each and every department. That is why we must work within research programs in order to make improvements in this regard.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You are talking about the mechanics of government, about the Clerk, about deputy ministers, but what about the political will of elected representatives? Can you count on that as well?

Mr. Scott Serson: I believe so, but I must say that we do not have enough money. We are always looking for money. Several of the Auditor General's recommendations require more money and within our commission, because of La Relève, we have needs in several areas and it is difficult to find money to be reallocated.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Have you made a request for more money to fulfill your needs?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, we have.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: What is the total amount?

Mr. Scott Serson: For the recruitment program, we have requested 32 million dollars per year.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: And the answer?

Mr. Scott Serson: We are waiting for an answer.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: When?

Mr. Scott Serson: In a month or two.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Do you have any indication that it will be positive?

Mr. Scott Serson: According to some indications that we have, we will get part of that amount.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Good. Do I have time for another question, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: You certainly do.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Okay. You said that you need some 32 million dollars and that you are faced with a situation that, let us say, is not an emergency, but that must be resolved without delay. How will you manage to solve your problem if you are given an amount that is less than what you have requested?

• 1615

Mr. Scott Serson: There are a couple of things that I find more important. The first is technology. Mr. Pallister raised the issue of the area of selection. If we are limited in our capacity to use the area of selection, we will have problems with the number of applications. In the private sector, corporations are using Web-based solutions to solve the problem of the volume of applications. We must invest in that kind of solutions.

There is as well the issue of the image of the public service that we can do something about. The Auditor General raised the issue of increased advertising for the public service.

Finally, I believe that we must use a more human approach with Canadians. As well, the number of people within the team that is working directly in the area of recruitment has been reduced and we must find some people not only to use the Web, but also to do more in the area of speaking to students and other Canadians.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I will have other questions in the next round, but could I ask one last brief question?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: From whom are you waiting for an answer?

The Chair: Please be very brief.

Mr. Scott Serson: From Treasury Board.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much. That's it.

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

[English]

Mr. Shepherd, please, eight minutes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Serson, I want to get back to this whole issue of your geographical hiring policies. First of all, could you tell me how many new hires you had over the last fiscal year?

Mr. Scott Serson: I think it was in the order of 40,000.

The Chair: New hires?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, Mr. Williams, because you're talking about casual hires, term hires, student hires—the whole business.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Scott Serson: Would you like Amelita to go through those figures?

Mr. Alex Shepherd: No.

Mr. Scott Serson: Oh, sorry.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I don't want to get dragged down on that, because the issue for both members of Parliament and massive numbers of people in this country is that your hiring practices are exclusive as opposed to inclusive. In other words, we exclude people from this process and at the same time say that we have to find the best people in the country. Those two viewpoints are somewhat inconsistent.

You say that you're reviewing this process. I spent about two hours of one of my researcher's time, and I can tell you, the process we have in the federal civil service is not replicated anywhere—private sector, public sector, anyplace I can find. The U.S. system basically requires everyone to write an exam. It doesn't matter where you are in the country. They then draw from that pool of people who have successfully completed the exam. So that's one possibility.

Let's look at IBM. They hired 2,420 people last year. They had 100,000 applications. They use software called ResumeX. They have a software program that basically uses the web page thing you're talking about and sorts it out for them.

Our government prides itself on being a government online. So why aren't we doing this in your department?

Mr. Scott Serson: My challenge, Mr. Shepherd, has been to convince my colleagues that, when they're talking about government online, our recruitment process is a service to Canadians and deserves some investment. We sought investment from the government online program and got a minimal response, with perhaps $100,000 or $200,000 directed to us through Human Resources Development Canada.

• 1620

Your point about IBM is exactly the point I was trying to make to Monsieur Desrochers, that we need the dollars to invest in these technological solutions in order to be able to cope with the kinds of volumes that movement away from area of selection would create. I think it's worth the investment.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: In view of the fact that the software already exists, have you investigated what the cost of that canned program could possibly be to the government?

Mr. Scott Serson: Amelita has been working more closely with this, so perhaps I could ask her where we are on that.

Ms. Amelita A. Armit (Vice-President, Staffing and Recruitment Programs, Public Service Commission of Canada): Yes, we have. In fact, we're very familiar with the software you've mentioned. But what we have to do for our initial... we have an existing technology system right now. What we need to invest in are what we call sorting mechanisms to filter out applications. We then have requirements for testing. We have to put testing online, and then we have to put assessments online. The initial investment is around $10 million to $12 million just to put that in, because we are going to convert the whole system we have. It's not just a matter of buying software and plugging it into the existing platform we have.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I see. But the solutions are clearly available.

Ms. Amelita Armit: They are.

Mr. Scott Serson: They're clearly available.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is there some way to refine that cost? You've estimated that it's going to take $12 million to do that in the federal civil service. Is that—

Ms. Amelita Armit: Those were our preliminary estimates in relation to the post-secondary recruitment program, but we have not made an estimate for the total. If we open up the national area of selection, a total for all of our recruitment programs, then it will be a different matter.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Presumably, if we brought in an automated system...

Getting back to your point about why you're involved in this geographical thing in the first place, you're saying you have people who are physically engaged in reviewing resumes—and they tell me it's not done too quickly, either. Presumably, those costs will then be reduced. There will be some significant cost reductions in implementing the system, will there not?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Eventually there will be some cost savings, especially in human resources.

Mr. Scott Serson: It's investment.

Ms. Amelita Armit: It's initial investment.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But have you done an analysis that would show what the initial capital cost would be, and then, presumably, how quickly the government could possibly recover that through savings in other areas within your department?

Ms. Amelita Armit: We have begun that examination in view of the interest that parliamentarians have brought forward to us about national area of selection. We're just beginning that analysis.

Mr. Scott Serson: Part of our problem, Mr. Shepherd, is that we have to judge return on investment. We could do a lot of work and then find that there is no source of funds for this. We have to at least secure the notion that there is a possible source of funds, and that there are some who are willing to consider a case of this nature before we divert resources to doing extensive work. But as Amelita says, we have done some preliminary work, and we continue to talk to our colleagues about the importance of trying to raise the priority of this.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is there some kind of concept of a pilot project that you can get into? Could you do a demonstration project to actually prove to somebody that this is an efficient thing to do?

Mr. Scott Serson: I think what Amelita would argue is that using our post-secondary recruitment program would be the best approach. We do some online testing with our post-secondary recruitment, so we have started down this road. But we acknowledge that our online facilities for PSR are not what they should be. We receive complaints as well from students who take the tests and want to know what their status is, who submit an application and would like an automatic e-mail response that their application has been received and is being considered. Each one of these new functions—which we continue to work at—is an important investment for us.

In terms of the use of scarce resources within the commission, I would say we are also conscious that not everybody has access to a computer. We have therefore invested and continue to invest in an Infotel capacity, so that Canadians in all areas of the country can have access to public service jobs even if they don't have computers. We've used some of our scarce resources in that area because we felt that was important as well.

• 1625

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So your initial investigation gave you the feeling that this is the road you should go down.

Mr. Scott Serson: Like you, we see the private sector using it successfully to deal with large volumes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Have you considered the American system? Maybe I have it wrong to some extent. They require everybody to write an exam, so those people who make spurious applications would likely be eliminated. Is there some merit to that?

Mr. Scott Serson: I'm going to ask my colleague Mr. Rimmer to deal with that because he deals quite closely with our American colleagues in comparing systems and progress.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer (Vice-President, Policy Research and Communications Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada): We've had the opportunity to visit them several times in order to understand how their system works. In fact, we're in the process of arranging for them to come up and visit us here and to show us more about what they do.

You're quite right, they do use a process of examining. That allows them to use the computer software to rate all of the applications, and that produces a list of qualified people. That has a certain attraction.

As the president said, there are issues about access. In order to use that technology, you have to have access to a computer. We ensure that there are systems available in our regional offices so that people across the country can have access to the technology. But we're not everywhere, so we use the Infotel number as well to provide that kind of access.

A number of systems have been developed, and we're researching them to see which ones best respond to our particular needs.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm surprised you're talking about access being a problem. We pride ourselves on spending millions of dollars in providing community access programs all across the country. Whether you're in Tuktoyaktuk or somewhere else, you can get access to the Internet. Why are you then suggesting that you can provide only a limited amount of access with your existing facilities?

Mr. Scott Serson: In part we're relying on the government's own e-government approach, which is that our understanding is that Canadians are desirous of the continuous use of multiple channels for the next little while until the use of the Internet expands.

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

We don't have a lot of people around the table, so I'm going to ask a few questions. I think we'll easily be able to come back to everybody else who would like to ask some questions.

First of all, Mr. Serson, you are an agent of Parliament. You're not a civil servant drawing authority from the Treasury Board. You've outlined problems due to a lack of money and so on. Have you advised Parliament that you have problems? I took a look at your public service annual report 1999-2000, and I didn't see you telling us about any problems you have.

Mr. Scott Serson: I think that's a fair comment, Mr. Chairman. I am coming close to the end of the second year of my term as president. In the first year I made an effort. I wrote to the chairs of both committees to whom we report seeking to appear. That wasn't possible. I met again with the chair of our Commons committee and the chair of our Senate committee.

The Chair: Which Commons committee is that?

Mr. Scott Serson: It's the transport and government operations committee. I have not been invited to appear before that committee, but I have been invited to appear before the Senate committee. So we're making progress there.

Certainly on these issues, Mr. Williams, for any question that is being raised in the House, I have personally written to or telephoned the member of Parliament to say I am willing to sit down and discuss the issues and talk about the challenges we face.

• 1630

The Chair: How do you expect us to lobby on your behalf and tell the government the issues if you're not going to include them in your report? You have not said to Parliament, “I have a problem. I would like to have some money to introduce some computerized systems and to be able to do this other thing, but the resources are not available.” You haven't put it in the report, so you're leaving it up to us, who have so many other competing agendas, to read your mind.

Rather than presenting a fluffy little report giving a few statistical examples of what's going on in the public service and a fluffy little report about what you're doing, I would hope that from here on in you would make it a meaningful report so that we actually can say that things are fine or not fine. If you need our assistance, say so in your report. You're the president of the Public Service Commission. You are an agent of Parliament. We're depending on you as the president to tell us these things.

Mr. Scott Serson: I would say two things in response to that, Mr. Chairman. One is that we are certainly trying to increase the quality of our annual report with regard to oversight. We see that as being the report where we should deal with the performance of departments.

The Chair: Do you mean the annual report?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes. Over the last two years we've signed new delegated agreements and accountability agreements with almost all departments. They are beginning to report to us on an annual basis. We will have 14 of those reports, which we will reflect in our annual report this year. I'm quite conscious of our responsibility for oversight, and we're going to do that.

Where we did reference this need for resources, perhaps not as forcefully as we should have, was in our report on plans and priorities, our 2002 estimates—

The Chair: I skimmed through it. I didn't notice it. Can you point it out to me?

Mr. Scott Serson: There is a reference on page 20. It's perhaps not as forceful as you'd like to see, but it is there.

The Chair: It's rather oblique, isn't it?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes. But as I said to Monsieur Desrochers, I think we have to wait for a firm reply from the Treasury Board before we go too much further.

The Chair: I can't overemphasize the fact that you're an agent of Parliament.

Mr. Scott Serson: I appreciate that.

The Chair: You're not taking direction from the Government of Canada. I'm very disappointed about the lack of raising the problems you encounter in the management of the commission, because we're the ones who are going to help you through it. It's the same with the plans and priorities report. Then again, I'm critical of all departments' plans and priorities and performance reports.

I was also disappointed in your comment that you fill the job orders for the departments. I thought your role was to manage the civil service to ensure we have the appropriate people with the right skills, the right demographics, and so on, so that it runs smoothly and harmoniously. I understand there has been very little information and planning by departments, perhaps apart from StatsCan, as to what the demographics are and what we need to do to ensure an effective, functioning civil service in the years ahead. I thought that you would have been the team leader to ensure that departments are doing that.

Mr. Scott Serson: I feel that I am the team leader.

The Chair: Does Ms. Fraser have anything to say on this?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I think it brings up the issue we raised in our chapter 9 on the whole issue of roles and responsibilities, which is that they need to be clarified along with the accountability. There are many players in the whole human resource area, and at times it's not obvious who is accountable for what.

The Chair: We've talked about the geographic restrictions on the residency of people applying for positions in the public service, and I'm absolutely appalled. It's only since this kind of bubbled up to the surface in Parliament during these last few months that we're now hearing, perhaps we should address this issue. It goes back to legislation from 1962. That's almost 40 years ago. These regional restrictions are so anachronistic and out of date that it's just amazing it's not in your report. This has to be amended at the earliest opportunity. We can't tolerate that today. We have websites. People in Vancouver can look at The Ottawa Citizen and find out exactly what job is being offered and maybe read about it even before it's read in Ottawa. They may want to come here at their own expense. There's no rational reason to exclude them, period, that I can come up with.

• 1635

The public service is presumably trying to portray a good image, and I notice that when you get all these applications, after you fill the job you throw them away. You don't keep the qualified ones and say “That job is filled, but maybe a month from now we can offer you another opportunity”. Why wouldn't you do that?

Mr. Scott Serson: We have begun to do that in certain shortage areas, but again, Mr. Williams, it's a question of the cost-efficiency of that. We can maintain—

The Chair: What can be more efficient than after having identified an applicant as a suitable, qualified applicant for job A, but they came number three on the list instead of number one and therefore didn't get it, that when a similar opportunity opens up, maybe in Winnipeg or Vancouver, offering it to them? Maybe they'll want it.

The cost to you would be far less than going through a whole new hiring process.

Mr. Scott Serson: I don't disagree with that at all, but the implication in the Auditor General's report is that we should keep these as inventories.

The Chair: Yes, as an employer I did that.

Mr. Scott Serson: But if we're dealing with post-secondary students, a month after we create this list, unless we manage it, unless we have the resources available to call people and ask if they're still available, the list will be out of date or we'll be trying to keep it fresh and in some areas we wouldn't get the demands for people to justify that expense.

The Chair: What does it take to send an e-mail, asking if you are still interested in a job that's similar? I'm sorry, I just don't buy the argument, and my time is up.

Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I come back once again to the answer that you are expecting from Treasury Board. Did you factor in a delay because you are waiting for that answer to activate your plan? When is the Treasury Board expected to give you an answer?

Mr. Scott Serson: I believe that we will have an answer next month.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: A positive answer?

Mr. Scott Serson: Positive, yes. However, will we get all that we have asked for? I do not believe so.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did you argue that you are competing with very strong private competitors that are already paying their employees higher wages? That argument can be understood in a competitive world. And did you indicate to Treasury Board that you had to have the tools required to take up that challenge?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, and I believe that the Treasury Board has a good knowledge of the situation. The Treasury Board Secretariat has invested in communities where there are gaps in science and technology, in policy, in human resources, in several areas where needs have been identified.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: As we know, a working group has recently been created to review the whole public service operation. I imagine that you have been made aware of that. Could this working group bring about a somewhat new direction in the recruitment program that you have put in place?

Mr. Scott Serson: Perhaps. However, the question may be too specific. As I understand it, the working group's role is focussed more on the area of legislation and institutional arrangements. At the same time, we have a lot of work to do. We are aware of it and we have a plan to improve the post-secondary recruitment program. We will pursue its implementation.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have all the information I wanted.

The Chair: Thank you very much Mr. Desrochers.

[English]

Mr. Murphy, please.

• 1640

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Serson, I want to clarify a point. The materials indicate that there's recruiting done in September and January in every year. Does that mean you're at the universities during those periods of time?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, we're doing career fairs.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: Would you be at every university right across Canada?

Mr. Scott Serson: I think the vast majority.

Ms. Amelita Armit: We try to go to all the universities, but we target it with the job orders that we have. For example, last year we were in 29 universities across the country.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: When you go to the universities, would you be acting for specific departments, or would it just be the federal civil service generally?

Ms. Amelita Armit: There are two things. We generally advertise what's available in the public service, and then we target certain faculties because there are jobs that are very specific. For example, we go with Statistics Canada when they look at economists and statisticians and all of that. But usually when we are in universities a number of students come from different backgrounds and we take that as an opportunity to explain what else is available, not only during the post-secondary campaign, but, as Mr. Serson said, we also have general recruitment that occurs throughout the year.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: On that point, you mentioned a figure of 40,000 positions being hired, I think, in the last fiscal year. Of those 40,000, how many would be pure hires—and I'm excluding the term “students”—advertised by the Public Service Commission?

Ms. Amelita Armit: What the 40,000 figure refers to is appointments. About 7% of them are for permanent, full-time positions; about 34% of them are term, which is less than 12 months; about 33% are casuals, which is every three months; and students are 26%.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: But you see what's going on. The term and the casual make up approximately ten times the pure positions, as I call them.

Ms. Amelita Armit: Yes.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: It seems to me—and I don't know if this would be a statement or a question—that it's really whether or not the department wants to be proactive or reactive and whether you manage the whole civil service. I would think, and you can agree with me or not, that you people would know how many new people, generally, you would need over the next demographic model. What is the future plan? Is it to be proactive and to hire people you need using the Public Service Commission, or to turn it over totally to the line departments and get out of hiring altogether? It seems to me that one in eleven hires are now done using the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Scott Serson: I don't want to leave you with the impression, Mr. Murphy, that because we're not doing it through post-secondary recruitment, the Public Service Commission isn't involved. For all of those hires we are involved in some way or another. In certain areas of shortage, or where a department is almost exclusively involved in the hiring of a profession, for instance the justice department with lawyers, we have delegated to them recruitment authority. Or Health Canada for nurses—we have delegated recruitment authority to them.

In some ways we're being challenged to do more of this, particularly in areas of shortage. I mentioned to Mr. Desrochers that Industry Canada, for the last 18 months, has felt very heavily pressed on the question of research engineers, so they have sought from us the authority to recruit them directly so that they can speed up the process. The commission's judgment was that on the balance of public interest, if the scarcity was that significant, and we believe it is, we should give them this authority so that the public interest isn't threatened by lack of qualified people to perform the functions Industry Canada needs them for.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: Let me change the area a little bit. Do you think you're constrained by virtue of the fact that most of your line departments are located in Ottawa?

• 1645

Mr. Scott Serson: Constrained? No.

Mr. Shawn Murphy: In the recruiting process.

Mr. Scott Serson: In terms of the leadership role that the Auditor General is suggesting we need to intensify, it's obviously a benefit to have many of them here in Ottawa. It makes it more efficient for us to deal with them in terms of having them represented on committees, talking to the top leadership on the importance of human resource planning, and those kinds of issues.

I'm not sure if you're trying to get that, but I do believe there is then a challenge for us to reach out in terms of some of the regional organizations and make sure there is a good dialogue in departments about particularly post-secondary recruitment access to regional jobs.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

I was looking at the erratum, an addendum to the Public Service Commission's annual report, on page 44, the table addressing recruitment programs. It lists the number and percentage of recruits under the Public Service Commission recruitment program. There are only 27,000 people listed here and yet you're talking 40,000. Where does the discrepancy coming from?

Mr. Scott Serson: Go ahead, Amelita.

Ms. Amelita Armit: It's because we did not in that number include the casuals and the students. They're not considered in there because they're not permanent appointments. The 27,000 number refers to very specific recruitment programs.

The Chair: I can see that. I think Mr. Murphy's question was on the casuals and the temps. I presume you're just rolling them over. You're not rehiring brand-new people right off the street every three months and so on. Can we assume that 27,000 new people coming into the public service on a regular basis is more appropriate than 40,000?

Mr. Scott Serson: My colleagues may have more expertise in this area, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think it's safe to assume that we're not rolling over.

The Chair: You must be rolling over a high percentage of temporaries and casuals.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, I think that is true. In fact—and this is not lost on us—the Auditor General urged us to look at the use of term and casual hires, and we are going to do that. I think the point they were making is that we need to get a better handle on whether public service managers are using temporaries and terms and casuals for good business purposes or whether this is just a hold-over from the way we used to do things during program review and have kind of continued to do so.

The Chair: It seems to me that in program review you let go of an awful lot of people who, had you done your demographics, you wouldn't have let go in the first place. Is that a valid assumption?

Mr. Scott Serson: I'm not sure how to answer that.

The Chair: But you hadn't done an assessment of the demographics prior to this.

Mr. Scott Serson: I was not at the Public Service Commission then, as you know, but I'm not aware of that kind of analysis. Doug may be able to speak to that situation.

The Chair: Mr. Rimmer.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: I'm not sure I would draw that conclusion.

The Chair: Was there an analysis of the demographics of the civil service prior to introducing the policy of program review, which saw thousands of people being given the golden handshake, or was there no review?

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: The Public Service Commission, which was not responsible for the decisions around the size of program review, did not conduct a specific analysis.

The Chair: And you're not aware that one was done?

Mr. Scott Serson: I am only aware to this extent, Mr. Chairman. During the end of program review, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office began her la relève activities. They were focused on senior management, because you were dealing with a smaller population and I think it was clearer to see the impacts of demography on that population. It's only been in the last couple of years that we've begun to appreciate the nature of the problem below that.

Now, that's a personal perspective. I don't know if—

The Chair: Ms. Fraser, you have something to add.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to ask Ms. Barrados to give you some information on the subject.

The Chair: Ms. Barrados.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, the office had looked at downsizing in the public service as part of program review. That whole effort was driven very much by budget reductions. The whole point of the exercise was to have lower expenditure on salary, and the government succeeded in doing that.

• 1650

It was a general incentive program, so there was a general offer made to people, and it was not driven by specific plans.

The Chair: And you're not aware either of any analysis in the government by Treasury Board or whomever to say there are certain segments of the civil service where we may have a dearth of talent if we open it up to a general opportunity; therefore we should exempt these categories. Are you aware of any study?

Ms. Maria Barrados: Mr. Chairman, when we looked at that, I do not recall any broad-based strategic analysis. I do know that in individual places some of the public service managers did that, but not across the board, because the focus was entirely different. The focus was on limiting and lowering the expenditure.

The Chair: I appreciate, Mr. Serson, that you weren't in the Public Service Commission at that time, but I'm just making a guess, and perhaps somebody can confirm if I'm wrong, that likely the annual report of the Public Service Commission to Parliament didn't point out that perhaps we're losing the wrong people. It's costing. We're going to have to hire them all back again at a very significant expense after they're on full pension, at age 50 and so on. It seems rather a lack of foresight on our part.

I'm looking at the Auditor General's table, exhibit 21.4, on page 21.14 and the very significant number of term appointments versus the indeterminate appointments. I understand term appointments are now favoured because of the complexities of indeterminate employees. I think of CCRA, the former Revenue Canada, which was hived off into an agency because it just became in essence too complex for them to manage their HR policies.

Over the last 30 or 40 years, why have we got ourselves into this kind of morass where we can never really get promotions done properly on time, hiring takes forever... Where's the problem, Mr. Serson?

Mr. Scott Serson: I don't see it, Mr. Chairman, as a global kind of problem. If we create the tools, we can succeed in hiring very rapidly. Some examples are the federal students work experience program and co-op. We brought in flexibilities where if a student gets experience through that program and the department wants to hire them at the end of that process, they can bridge very easily.

Where we create pools of qualified employees, which we are moving towards increasingly right now in the public service—it's on our short-term agenda—

The Chair: So you are moving in that direction?

Mr. Scott Serson: Absolutely, and where we create those pools, as we have done at the ADM level, once the pool is created, the hiring can take place in a day or two.

The Chair: Just a second. I asked a question about a pool of talent that's hireable under the post-secondary hiring program and you said you could never keep your database up to date. Now you're saying you are able to. Am I missing something here?

Mr. Scott Serson: The only difference I'm making is I'm talking about internal pools, where we have a captive—

The Chair: You're talking promotional pools.

Mr. Scott Serson: You asked why can't we get the staffing system so that we can staff quickly, and that's what I was responding to.

The Chair: Okay. So you're not talking hiring; you're talking promotion.

Mr. Scott Serson: I'm talking about promotion, yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm back to our concern about technology, and I'm trying to get through your plans and priorities report. You said you're waiting for another $32 million. You're waiting for Treasury Board approval. Is that a supplementary estimate?

Mr. Scott Serson: It's a Treasury Board submission that we're—

Mr. Alex Shepherd: That's in addition to the estimates you have already submitted.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So it's a supplementary estimate.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: If I took the $32 million, how much of that is allocated to new technology?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Probably half of it, because the $32 million is over a period of three years, and a significant portion of it is technology. As I said, it's about $10 million to $15 million.

• 1655

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Can you show me in your plans and priorities where you're budgeting or thinking about new technologies? On your line-by-line items, is there some place you can point to me where you're providing in your plans and priorities for the future, where you're spending some more money in technology to solve some of these problems?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Under the post-secondary recruitment program we have right now a very minimal investment in technology.

Mr. Scott Serson: For instance, if you look at pages 25 and 26...

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm looking at them now.

Mr. Scott Serson: If you look at the top of page 26, Mr. Shepherd, you'll see “HRM system” plan results “supported by consistent and current information and technology for staffing and recruitment”. You'll see the second related activity beside that is “Articulate a vision for e-recruitment and continue to enhance the federal jobs Web site and other staffing and recruitment systems such as Infotel”—the phone system I spoke about—“and priority administration”.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Where's the line budget for that?

Mr. Scott Serson: We don't want to make a commitment until we hear from the board about whether we're going to have the resources to do it. Is that a fair way of referring to that? Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So in reality, in your plans and priorities there are no thought processes in here for any spending on new technologies.

Mr. Scott Serson: We are going to continue to spend at the margin, primarily to enhance the functionality of the jobs.gc website, make it more functional, yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm obviously taking a very cursory look, and I'm looking at all these line-by-line items. The reality is you have put money in here for a lot of other things, different types of training programs, maintaining available data with modelling analysis, HR needs, and so forth. The whole object of the exercise is to tell you what you think are the most important things, and when I read this I assume you think this technology thing doesn't have a very high priority.

Mr. Scott Serson: Well, I've already told you that we have reallocated to parts of the technology. We felt that our capacity to continue to reallocate was limited, and that's why we sought resources from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: The $32 million, and you say about half... Is it allocated to new hardware, software? How would I break it down?

Ms. Amelita Armit: We can provide you detailed information on it.

Mr. Scott Serson: We can give you a detailed breakdown.

Ms. Amelita Armit: We do have a breakdown for what is hardware, what is development, and what would be implementation costs.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So when we talk about this exterior program, which you seem to know a little bit about, is it something like that, buying that software?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: That's within your budget of $15 million?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Yes.

I'd just like to point out that the estimates we have submitted to the Treasury Board, as the president said, are not included in here. The $32 million that we asked for is not part of our RPP, and that's why we say “not available”, because we did make a submission after this process had been completed.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: You're saying you included your wish list in here but you didn't put any dollar value associated with it because this ties in with a specific estimate?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: The estimates in fact are about $130 million a year. Is that right?

Ms. Amelita Armit: Right.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Which is consistent with the previous year.

Ms. Amelita Armit: Yes.

Mr. Scott Serson: That's a little high, isn't it?

The Chair: It's $129 million, including the shadow costs. Your personnel costs are up approximately 8% and your other costs are down by about the same amount. Therefore your total cost last year versus this year is almost identical. But you're projecting an 8% increase in wages with no increase in FTEs. What's the rationale for that?

• 1700

Mr. Alex Shepherd: It would appear that you had a similar kind of supplementary estimate last year of $26 million. It says: “Adjustments are to accommodate approvals obtained since...”. Yes, it's the same idea of last year. You had to go back for supplementary estimates of $26 million in the previous year.

The Chair: What page are you looking at, Mr. Shepherd?

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Page 21.

The Chair: Page 21.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: The essential difference between this year's expenditure and last year's is a supplementary estimate of $26 million.

So every year you go back for supplementary estimates of about... In reality, if you got the $32 million supplementary estimates, your total spending wouldn't be any different from the previous year, is that correct?

Mr. Scott Serson: I'm going to ask our vice-president of corporate services to come to the table, please.

The Chair: Can you give us your name and your position before you start speaking, please?

Mr. Michael Nelson (Vice-President, Corporate Services, Public Service Commission of Canada): My name is Michael Nelson. I'm the vice-president of corporate services at the Public Service Commission.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Michael Nelson: At least some of the cost increases in the past year are due to collective bargaining costs. So even though you might not get the FTEs increasing in any given year, because of the collective bargaining processes for CSs, for example, the computer science group, or other groups, the executive group, for example, those types of cost increases are passed on through those extra amounts of money.

The executives are not part of the collective bargaining, but our salary bill can increase, as with any private sector company, for example.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Let me just clarify that. What are we talking about now? Is the $32 million in supplementary estimates that you're now asking for related to that?

Mr. Michael Nelson: No.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: You're talking about how the $26 million for the previous year was related to that.

Mr. Michael Nelson: Yes. The $32 million we talked about that is not in the RPP was part of a submission to the Treasury Board for program integrity funds. Because the RPP talks about the actual money that you are going to be getting from Parliament, if you don't know yet—and you don't know at that time—whether you're going to be getting the $32 million, you don't put it in your plans and priorities because you don't know whether you're getting the money yet.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Explain the words “program integrity funds”. What does that mean?

Mr. Michael Nelson: Perhaps we should be leaving it to our Treasury Board colleagues to explain the program integrity process, but some funds have been made available by Treasury Board over the past year to departments through a process where departments said these are the funds they need in order to deliver the gap between what they're expecting they have to deliver and the actual money they have. They were able to make submissions to the board to say they would like to have this much more money to deliver their programs.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But does that tie in with what we were saying earlier, that half of the $32 million is earmarked towards new technology?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

Mr. Michael Nelson: Yes. That is the amount of money we're talking about. The money, the $32 million, was a submission we made for program integrity funds.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: So there's $15 million in there for new software programs, hardware, whatever, to get us online and to clear up some of this.

Mr. Scott Serson: In the spirit of what Mr. Williams said earlier, I have no problem, Mr. Shepherd, sharing with the committee a summary of the kinds of areas where we thought we needed assistance. We'll get it right in black and white.

The Chair: Yes, you can send us a report on that, Mr. Serson. I'm sure we'll be interested in that.

Thank you, Mr. Shepherd, and we can come back to you if you want some more questions. We're a little short of MPs today.

Anyway, on paragraph 9.107 of the Auditor General's report, it says:

The study shows that it takes 119 calendar days on average to complete a closed competition in the core public service, not including added time to deal with any appeals. For a new position that needs to be classified, staffing takes 230 calendar days on average.

That's almost eight months. And I think you made reference earlier, Mr. Serson, that if a department really wants to get somebody in a hurry, you just let them do it, because they can do it faster than you can. And I think I heard somewhere that 119 days is about twice as long as any other quasi-governmental body.

• 1705

Could you give us your comments on why it takes 119 days after the competition is closed for you to make a selection, make an offer?

Mr. Scott Serson: I'd have to have more information, Mr. Chairman, before I bought that 119 days was after... I assume the 119 days starts, and I'm not sure that I've ever found this study the Auditor General refers to—

The Chair: Then perhaps we'll ask the Auditor General to justify the numbers or figures or statements.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'll ask Ms. Elliott to respond to that.

Ms. Kathryn Elliott (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): There was in 1996 a consultative study of the staffing process that sometimes referred to as the Hyrna study, which was done by the Public Service Commission, and this was one of the annexes. We took this information from one of the annexes in that report that was done by the Public Service Commission.

That 119 days would be from the date the manager made the request to staff. It would not be after the closing of the competition. That would include the time the job was advertised.

The Chair: So it's 119 days on average to complete a closed competition. What do you mean by a “closed competition”?

Ms. Kathryn Elliott: It's only open to people already in the public service.

The Chair: So you don't even have to advertise in the big wide world.

Ms. Kathryn Elliott: No.

The Chair: And you've already pre-qualified because they're already hired and on staff, and it's still 119 days. How long does it take to hire somebody from the big wide world who has never seen a government office? Does anybody have any idea?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I might add, the 230 we referred to is in the same paragraph. No, sorry.

Ms. Maria Barrados: If it's a new position, we're saying it's 230. But you could have a new position within the public service as well.

The Chair: But if there's a vacancy and the department says they have a vacancy in this particular job, and they have to contact the Public Service Commission to fill this job with somebody with qualifications of A, B, and C, how long does that take on average? Does anybody know?

Mr. Rimmer.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: There are a variety of factors that go into this issue.

The Chair: I know there's a variety. Do you have any idea how long it takes?

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: It can take a matter of days. It depends on the staffing process the manager wishes to use and the speed at which the manager wishes to move. So if his need is urgent, and he or she needs somebody to fill a job right away, they can move somebody in that on a lateral movement, or on an assignment basis very quickly.

The Chair: No. My question was how long does it take to go outside to the big wide world and to hire somebody and bring them in, advertise a job, evaluate the applications, check the credentials and see that the qualifications are legitimate, do the interview, make the offer, and so on, and get them working? I'm not talking about lateral transfers to fill an urgent job.

A witness: We don't have an average time.

Ms. Amelita Armit: We don't have an average time, but I can speak to you about the experience we have with information technology. Because of the very specialized equipment strategy we put in place, you can hire right now someone in the computer science category within three days, or one week, because we have an inventory and it has been maintained over the last three years.

The Chair: So it is possible to maintain inventories.

Ms. Amelita Armit: And to maintain pre-qualified pools. But I'd like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very specialized strategy, which was given very dedicated funds by the Treasury Board.

The Chair: That seems to be a very special case. Let's leave the special case.

Nobody seems to have an idea. There's no average. Do you have any idea of approximately how long it takes to run through the process?

First of all, the manager is going to want to fill this position. He fills out a form, he sends it over to the Public Service Commission with his boss's signature on it, too likely, and then you say you have to advertise this. How long do you advertise? Then you have to wait for the applications to come in. Then you have to screen the applications. Then you have to decide who you are going to interview. You have to do that and then offer the position. How long does it take?

Mr. Scott Serson: If the manager was really prepared to do the job, I'm going to pick a figure like two months as an average.

The Chair: Two months.

There's also a process, which you alluded to, whereby the department can actually hire the staff themselves without going through the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Scott Serson: They can seek delegation from us in scarcity areas, yes.

The Chair: Only in scarcity areas?

• 1710

Mr. Scott Serson: Typically, that's where we feel the need is most urgent, so we look at it in that area.

The Chair: But it seems to me that if there's a bit of an urgency or scarcity, or whatever terminology you use, you let the department fill the job themselves through a delegated authority. Everything else you handle yourself. But it's a meandering “we'll get the job done whenever we get the job done” concept.

Mr. Scott Serson: No, I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of this system, Mr. Chairman.

The biggest factor in staffing an individual, even with our services, is the manager's time. Does he have a classified position when he says this? Has he done any planning, or does he wait till the vacancy occurs, or does he do some anticipatory work on a vacancy before it occurs? Does he know what his needs are? Does he have a statement of qualifications? Does he know how many applicants he wants to look at? He comes to us with that. We can mount the advertising very quickly. We can do the screening very quickly. Then we turn back a series of applications.

Depending on his screening requirements, we may turn a significant number of applications back to him. He or she has to look through them. They have to mount a board to assess them. They might put tests in if they have volumes; they might want to test them. Even when they're finished that process, they're going to have to look at things like security clearance, which has nothing to do with the staffing system but is required. Is the individual going to have to be language tested? Is it a bilingual position? All of these factors figure into that kind of time in a public service.

The Chair: You're not gathering stats on how long it takes.

Mr. Scott Serson: What I am trying to do, Mr. Chairman—and this is a focused choice—is rather than do more of these general studies that give us general kinds of timeframes, but we don't know what the problem is, we have created over the last two years a delegated staffing unit, and that staffing unit is now in the process of going into selected departments to review their staffing and recruitment processes and look at the kinds of times, where the delays occur, and take a very practical approach to what some of these problems are, and solve them on the spot while we're there at the same time, not wait for research findings.

The Chair: In paragraph 9.78, the Auditor General's report says:

Current systems are overly complex, inefficient and in need of reform. As far back as 1983, this Office

—that's the Auditor General's office—

reported that managers viewed existing systems—particularly the job classification and staffing systems—as key constraints to productive management.

As far back as 1983.

You may want to correct me, but I perceive that the Public Service Commission is the driving force, the agency that really is proactive in hiring and promoting efficiently and effectively the people in our civil service. Where do you see your role, and what have you done to try to correct this anomaly, which has been pointed out again by the Auditor General 18 years after it was first pointed out?

Mr. Scott Serson: In my tenure, I have begun to dialogue, and the department has, to re-acquaint hiring managers with the values that lie behind the Public Service Employment Act so that they're not bogged down by the question of rules but understand the values that lie underneath them. We have produced training material for them. I have personally visited many departments and talked to senior management teams. We have—

The Chair: What's coming out of these discussions? Where are you going?

Mr. Scott Serson: Slowly but surely I think we're getting them... The fact is that through program review... As I said before, I think there was a kind of disengagement on the part of management from the staffing system. It wasn't something they were using. We've had to re-acquaint them with the fundamentals of it, but as well, I've tried, and my team is trying, to challenge them to say the Public Service Employment Act gives us a certain number of flexibilities that we can use to make your hiring easier. But that does require a dialogue about what your needs are, and we are undertaking that dialogue. At the same time, we're moving forward. We're looking at simplification of our recourse system. We're trying to get departments to move to early intervention. In every area of our work we have work under way. The move to more pre-qualified pools—

• 1715

The Chair: So you agree that the Public Service Commission has the authority to take the lead to develop, be innovative, and take the initiative in the human resources management of the civil service.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, but I also believe that in a delegated system, and as delegated as we are after the last 10 or 15 years, we also need an active partnership with departments in terms of a dialogue about where the problems are and how to fix them. I am encouraging that dialogue.

The Chair: I hope you move the agenda along fairly quickly.

I'm looking at, again, the AG's paragraph 9.79. He's talking again about the staffing situation:

They are very costly to administer, as reported in 1990 in the White Paper on Public Service 2000. It noted that in 1985 there were proportionately three times as many people administering the human resource management regime as in leading private sector employers. The job classification reforms proposed at that time aimed to achieve a “significant reduction of the number of classification, staffing and pay actions, which will generate considerable savings.”

That was in 1985 and 1990, and I think we're still waiting. Why are we still waiting, Mr. Serson?

Mr. Scott Serson: This paragraph is about the classification system and that's a Treasury Board responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Scott Serson: I think the hope was that once a new classification system was in place, the staffing system could be expedited by mechanisms like appointment to level and the greater use of pre-qualified pools because of the simplified system. I think that's what that tries to get at.

The Chair: I find it disappointing that there's an inertia in the public service management, and as the Public Service Commission, you have a role to set the initiative and set the style of the civil service. When I hear and read about thousands of our brightest university students who would like to have a career with the public service and they find out that their one application is set aside and not used for other opportunities... The dialogue is far too slow.

The very first contact our young, bright university graduates have with the government is lethargic; it trips over its shoelaces. Why wait? They're off to the private sector, or off to the United States, where it's vigorous and exciting. The very first contact they have with the government as a potential employer cannot be a motivating experience. What are you doing to fix that?

Mr. Scott Serson: As I said, we need to use technology. When you're talking about young students, most of them are using either our post-secondary recruitment mechanism or our website. We're trying to make that as attractive as possible. As an organization, we're personally getting out to visit campuses, as I said earlier. I too am concerned, not only about the kind of reaction they get when they deal with our website or our post-secondary recruitment process and our need to increase its speed and functionality, but in terms of their work experience. I think we have to be concerned about all of these things. We are moving as quickly and as expediently as we can to improve them.

The Chair: Does anybody from the Office of the Auditor General care to comment on that?

Mr. Scott Serson: Could I just ask Mr. Rimmer to say a few words? You asked about young students. We have done some research and we'd be happy to share with the committee on that issue. Maybe Doug could speak very briefly to it.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1720

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: As we indicated in the statistics on appointments, we hire about 10,000 students a year. This past summer we carried out a survey of those students to determine the nature of their experience as federal government employees in a student environment: What did they like? What did they not like? Did they get the opportunity to use their skills? We've been compiling the results of that and it should be available very shortly in final form. As the president said, we could make that available to the committee.

The Chair: Did you say 10,000 post-secondary students?

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: I said 10,000 students. I think what the statistics—

Mr. Scott Serson: Summer students.

Mr. Douglas Rimmer: Yes. These are people who are hired as students, not graduates who are hired as new hires, which is what the post-secondary recruitment program does.

The Chair: Okay. Well, we're going to wrap this up now.

I hope you're hearing a message of serious concern from the members of Parliament, Mr. Serson.

Mr. Scott Serson: We appreciate it.

The Chair: We're looking for you, as the president of the Public Service Commission, an agent of Parliament, to take a dynamic approach to resolving these issues. Some of the legislation you're working under is almost 40 years old.

I would hope, even though you feel you have the authority, that you never again advertise on a geographic basis, saying if you live outside that area, don't apply, we don't want you. I think it's just absolutely appalling. My recommendation is to stop it and to stop it now, even though you feel you have the legislative authority to continue on that basis.

I want to see your annual report tell us about your problems and your accomplishments. That's fine, accomplishments, but problems...

Mr. Scott Serson: That's fair.

The Chair: I think a couple of weeks ago, when Ms. Fraser appeared as the interim Auditor General, as an agent of Parliament, the question was, do you have enough money? The answer was, well, we're hoping Treasury Board is going to give us some more. She responded by saying if they don't, she'll be writing to this committee. You have the same opportunity as an agent of Parliament. You can write to Parliament and say the Treasury Board isn't giving you the resources you need. You have that authority, so take it. Be proactive. Be bold.

We have great opportunities and great careers, and as I said, if you turn people off at the very first contact with the federal government, they're jaundiced forever, perhaps.

Mr. Scott Serson: I'm glad to have your support, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You have our support to get the job done and fix the problems and bring in new legislation. Let's have a great public service.

Ms. Fraser, we'll turn it over to you for closing comments.

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

There are just a few points we'd like to make. We are pleased that the Public Service Commission has agreed to many of our recommendations and is working to implement them, and we would encourage them to continue in that vein.

As we've noted, there are many changes that can be made outside of legislative reforms. We would encourage improved reporting on recruitment results and activities, and you have mentioned the challenges facing recruitment in the public service. Finally, we would hope that the opportunity is taken to make significant changes in staffing part of the newly announced modernization initiative.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

The next meeting will be Tuesday, May 8, at 3:30 p.m.

This meeting stands adjourned.