OGGO Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 27, 2003

0910

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

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board)

0915

0920

The Chair

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

0925

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office)

0930

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

0935

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

0940

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister, Senior Advisor, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

0945

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

0950

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Lahey

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

0955

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Ken Epp

1000

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1005

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Lahey

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1010

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. James Lahey

1015

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1020

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Tony Valeri

Mr. James Lahey

1025

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1030

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1035

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Ranald Quail

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

1040

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 012

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): We are now in session.

Today we are about to begin the examination of this small piece of legislation, Bill C-25.

We have the minister here to present the bill. Madam Minister, I will turn it over to you. Perhaps you could introduce the officials who are with you

[Translation]

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, this morning it is my pleasure to have with me

[English]

Jim Lahey, Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board; Ran Quail, who is in charge of the task force on human resources reform; and Monique Boudrias, the senior adviser to the task force. These are the people with whom I've worked very closely over the past few months.

[Translation]

Colleagues, I would like to start by thanking you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the Public Service Modernization Act. I intend to keep my remarks short in order to provide plenty of time to address your questions and comments.

I realize that you are familiar with Bill C-25. I hope that I can add to your knowledge by explaining what we hope to achieve through it.

The Public Service Modernization Act is an historic piece of legislation in my opinion. It is a key factor in the introduction of fundamental change in the way that we manage human resources in the public service. And, it is a key part of an even broader management reform agenda being led by Treasury Board as the management board of government. Bit by bit, we are changing the way government works in order to ensure its continued ability to meet Canadians' changing needs and expectations

Our Modern Management Agenda has many elements. We are improving our capacity to manage resources prudently through modern comptrollership practices. We also want to improve services by using new technologies to engage citizens and stakeholders more effectively.

I'm happy to say that we have made some great progress in recent years. But more needs to be done. And we won't be able to do it unless we modernize the way we manage our people. Good people management is the foundation upon which all other change is built. You need the right people, with the right skills and the passion to get the job done.

To my mind, that is what this legislation is all about: making sure we can attract and retain talented individuals and create a working environment where they can excel and grow in the service of their fellow citizens.

[English]

When drafting Bill C-25 we thought it was important to articulate the values upon which the legislation is based in order to describe the work environment we hope to achieve through the legislation and, more broadly, with our overall efforts to modernize human resources practices. That is why we decided to include preambles for both the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. They express the context in which this legislation should be viewed.

I also believe they express well the objectives we want to achieve in creating an exemplary work environment. First, we want a public service that strives for excellence, that is representative of Canada's diversity, and that is able to serve the public with integrity and in the official language of their choice. Second, public service managers should be afforded the flexibility necessary to staff, manage, and lead their personnel to achieve results for Canadians. Finally, we must recognize that an effective and harmonious labour-management regime is a cornerstone of good human resource management and must operate in a context where the protection of the public interest is paramount.

But as we all know, to achieve these goals we must overcome many. We have more to do in order to attract and retain the people we need, to introduce a culture of continuous learning and innovation, and to foster more constructive labour-management relations.

[Translation]

Much of the challenge lies with the processes and procedures that govern how we manage our people. The current legislative regime is fragmented and outdated. It was written for a different time and a different workforce. It is time to move forward—and we believe that the Public Service Modernization Act will help us to do that.

Bill C-25 is a comprehensive and carefully measured set of proposals. It represents a balanced approach to people management that will serve as a foundation for change.

The Bill proposes significant changes to the current legislative framework underpinning human resources management in the public service. It includes two new Acts—a new Public Service Employment Act and a new Public Service Labour Relations Act—and amends the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act.

Bill C-25 focuses on three main areas: staffing, labour-management relations and learning. It will also help clarify who is responsible for what in HR management.

We have all heard the complaints about the current staffing system: it is too cumbersome, too slow and too focused on unnecessary red tape. It is an obstacle course. We need to fix this if we want to compete with more agile employers.

¿ (0915)

[English]

The provisions of the bill are designed to promote increased flexibility in staffing. They will improve the way we achieve results for Canadians by ensuring our continued ability to put the right people in the right place at the right time.

The new legislation provides for more effective accountability by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of those who manage people in the government. It would better align their responsibilities to their roles. For example, Bill C-25 would maintain the Public Service Commission as an independent agency accountable to Parliament, responsible for protecting the merit principle in ensuring that competence and non-partisanship are at the core of our staffing system. Through the realignment of policy and training responsibilities, the commission will become more tightly focused on its mandate of ensuring merit and on its responsibility to monitor, investigate, and audit staffing activities.

We would also retain the current accountability regime in which deputy heads are accountable to the Public Service Commission for the exercise of their delegated appointment authorities. The Public Service Commission would have the authority to investigate appointments and take corrective action if it determines that inappropriate practices had taken place.

The new legislation also proposes a more effective staffing recourse system, one designed to make managers more clearly answerable for their decisions. The proposed new arrangements allow for an informal process within departments for employees to raise concerns related to a staffing process.

[Translation]

Should the need for a formal staffing recourse mechanism arise, a new independent review body, the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, would be available to deal with complaints of abuse of authority such as bureaucratic patronage or failure to be assessed in one's official language of choice. Having such cases examined by a Tribunal that is independent from the staffing authority will ensure greater objectivity and fairness for all concerned.

Of course, staffing is only one area upon which the Public Service Modernization Act touches. Improving labour-management relations is another. With 85% of the public service unionized, it is critical that the employer and unions work together to create a healthy workplace. The goal of the PSMA is to cultivate a climate of trust and cooperation. The new Public Service Labour Relations Act would set the framework for greater labour-management cooperation while recognizing that the public interest is paramount.

The new Bill will improve dialogue through mandatory departmental union-management consultation committees, co-development and informal dispute resolutions.

It will improve collective bargaining through enhanced mediation and conciliation through, for example: the appointment of public interest commissions, negotiated essential services agreements, compensation research and analysis services and improved adjudication and mediation services.

Finally, C-25 would improve labour management relations by providing for more comprehensive grievance and adjudication mechanisms.

[English]

The third component of the Public Service Modernization Act is learning. Learning is the key to the success of our reforms. The proposed Canada School of Public Service will support more coherent training and learning activities to help employees pursue the professional development needed to keep their skills up to date and foster innovation. At the same time, it will provide managers with the training they need to become more effective leaders and administrators, well grounded in the core values of the public service.

Of course, the Public Service Modernization Act is one part of a bigger equation. I think that fact needs to be stressed. Human resources reform is a much more complex and long-term challenge that will require, among other things, a greater focus on leadership development, a reaffirmation of our core values, and ultimately a substantial change in working culture. In many respects, this legislation will provide the foundation upon which these other efforts can build. It is a key enabler of other activities.

So, dear colleagues, as you can imagine, a great deal of work has already taken place to get this bill to this stage. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the hundreds of public service managers, employees, and other stakeholders who took the time to participate in the consultations that helped to shape this legislation. But that work is not over. Clearly, a great deal more remains to be done to achieve the type of workplace we need for our public service.

I've been looking forward to this committee process as an opportunity to move the dialogue on human resources modernization to a new level. I was impressed and encouraged by the second reading debate. As I listened to my colleagues, I realized the interest and knowledge they have on this issue, and I welcome their views. I was encouraged because I realized that our respective visions of an effective human resources management system for the public service are all very close.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

Together, we have a real opportunity to put our mark on an institution with a long and proud tradition of excellence. We are not just tinkering in the margins. The decisions we make over the next few months will have a clear and enduring impact on one of Canada's most essential and respected organizations.

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I and my officials would now welcome any questions that you may have.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

We'll begin a seven-minute round with Mr. Forseth, and then Mr. Lanctôt, Mr. Cullen, and Madame Folco. And then we'll get going again.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Welcome, Madam Minister, to this committee. You've undertaken a great enterprise with Bill C-25. I see even in the newspaper this morning that there are still some doubters out there saying “show me”, and then they list all of the previous attempts at public service renewal. We hope that this time we will truly move the ball down the field towards the goal of modern public service in the 21st century.

I don't have a lot of time this time around, but I want to zero in on the issue of merit. I have a two-part question. You have heard my comment that perhaps the definition of merit in the bill is somewhat watered down in that nowhere does it really say there's an objective effort to get the very best person within a competition. Nowhere does it mention the appointment of persons of most merit within a competition. It just seems to say that if someone meets some basic standards, they will then fulfill the merit principle. So perhaps you can comment on that, and maybe you're prepared to have another look at the overall regime of definition to provide some direction to the writing of regulations.

There is an allusion to excellence in the preamble, but perhaps that isn't quite enough to talk about what merit really means, especially when we have some jurisprudence speaking to that matter. And then in view of merit, when someone feels that merit has been violated in an appointment process, how is that going to be adjudicated and dealt with, or ameliorated, in response?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, let me start.

First of all, when you say that we watered down the principle of merit, I really don't agree with that. I want to remind everyone that in the current legislation, the legislation we're working with right now, we don't have any definition of merit. So it means that over the years the definition was really outlined by all the decisions, or by the appeal mechanism, or by the court, and that's why we have that big jurisprudence.

Right now in the system we have what we call the best qualified people, who we have to choose. So when we say that in the selection process we will choose the best qualified, it seems very attractive because that should be, in a general sense, what we should do in the selection process: choose the best qualified person. But--

¿ (0925)

Mr. Paul Forseth: But “best qualified” is not in the legislation, is it?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, but with all the jurisprudence we've had, this is what the manager is obliged to do right now.

For example, let's say we have an internal nomination and we have 60 people who apply for a job. First of all, the manager will be obliged to evaluate the 60 people one by one, and not only evaluate them but rank them. You can imagine what that means. It will become very cumbersome and lengthy. More than that, the person who thinks that perhaps there was an abuse in the system will have to wait until the end of the process before putting forth a complaint or a grievance. It means the process is very long.

What we've tried to do here through the legislation is to bring a definition into the legislation about what merit is, and here merit is really the basic principle, as you know, to hire somebody in the public service. That's why you find out here what merit is exactly, what is a competent person, and what a manager should take into account when he chooses one person. And if he chooses one person and another person thinks he was wrong, you have safeguards here in the system to permit that person to be able to enter a complaint.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Let's then look at the back end of my question, about when someone perhaps does put in a complaint. You're creating a new body, or whatever, to deal with that process. What are some of the reliefs available? I think I mentioned to you that the most obvious solution would be to say that the competition should be done over again.

If there truly was a problem, the power should be to be able to vacate the decision and simply do it over again, instead of providing all kinds of other relief that may involve the Human Rights Commission, or notice to them, and compensation and all the rest of it. The principle is the same as the court system. If you go to a higher level and it's appealed, you vacate the decision and do it over again, and that's the most corrective way to keep a system running smoothly without getting overly entangled in lawsuits.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Perhaps Ranald Quail could be more specific about it, but the tribunal may order that an appointment be revoked if they find out there was some abuse of authority. They can order that an appointment be revoked.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That doesn't appear to be in the legislation. I would like to see that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, we'll tell you what article.

Mr. Paul Forseth: All right. Very well.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Perhaps Mr. Quail could expand on that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office): I would like to explain a little bit the part dealing with a complaint. We've structured this in a way that, first of all, it would be based on the concerns of the individual, on how the individual was treated, and if the individual did not think he or she was treated properly, he or she could first go into the department to seek relief at any time during the process.

If he or she does not get relief during the departmental process, they can then move and make their complaint to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The staffing tribunal, as the minister has pointed out, is an independent tribunal. You know that, Mr. Forseth. They will look at the issue on the basis of merit.

The section you were asking about, corrective action when a complaint is upheld, is clause 81, page 141 of the legislation. Subclause 81(1) reads:

If the Tribunal finds a complaint under section 77 to be substantiated, the Tribunal may order the Commission or the deputy head

--it depends on whether or not it's been delegated by the commission to a deputy head--

to revoke the appointment or not to make the appointment, as the case may be, and to take any corrective action that the Tribunal considers appropriate.

I think that is fairly directive in terms of the power of the independent tribunal.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I would think that would perhaps be the most frequent way of solving it rather than all the other provisions provided.

Mr. Ranald Quail: We would certainly hope not, Mr. Chairman. We've set this up. We hope the complaints will be resolved in the department and that it will be infrequent relative to going to the complaints. If we're successful, that will be a major achievement.

To resolve the issue of the complaint in the workplace...“I am not happy with the way in which you undertook the competition and I was not treated properly. You treated the minister one way and you treated me another way.” It might happen, but in a different circumstance.

Seriously, then, if I'm not happy at any step in the process, we would anticipate and hope--and I think it would be important--that departments would set up a process and would set up a culture that would allow me to question, how come I didn't qualify? You would look at it, and you have the authority to take action if indeed you found you made a mistake. If we get that right, there won't be too much going to the PSST.

Mr. Paul Forseth: My time is up, but I would say I hope that will work, especially if you clarify the definition of merit itself.

The Chair: Thank you for sneaking that last one in.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

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

I was going to talk about whistle blowing, but I will continue along the same line as my colleague. We will come back to the issue of protection for whistle-blowers.

It is clear to us that change is required in the area of recruitment and staffing. However, the intention is to assign responsibility for the merit principle to the deputy head, who, apparently, will be responsible for human resources. So this individual will make the decisions.

What concerns the unions about the wording of the bill is that while there may not be blackmail involved, it would be good for candidates to be on the right side of the deputy minister in question. There is a danger if we look just at competency, but there can be a major problem if we look at merit alone. Someone could be shoved off into a corner, particularly in the case of internal appointment. There is no outside, independent individual to oversee this. As the bill is drafted, this will be the responsibility of the deputy minister. If the deputy minister likes a particular individual, he or she will probably favour this candidate in a staffing process, particularly since the staffing level was not bargained with the unions. All these criteria will have been established by the deputy minister himself, and if someone is not in the good books of the deputy minister or the head of human resources, there could be a problem. That is a great concern for the public service unions and the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You are talking in particular about internal appointments. There is external recruitment and internal appointments.

I would point out to begin with that it is always the Public Service Commission that is responsible for appointments from both outside and inside the public service. But the Commission can delegate its authority to the deputy minister, and the deputy minister can naturally delegate as well within his or her organization, given the size of our organizations and the fact that our managers are spread across the country. So there is delegation and managers use their delegated authority.

The deputy minister has to be accountable for how the delegated authority has been used. Moreover, the Public Service Commission can always do audits. Under this bill, the Commission has increased authority, and its new powers are similar to those of the Auditor General. It can carry out audits of how the staffing system is implemented in the various departments.

If employees feel that their rights have been violated and that favouritism has been shown, what can they do? As Mr. Quail said earlier, each department is being asked to establish an alternative dispute settlement mechanism in cooperation with the union, so that this mechanism can be used throughout the process in order to correct any mistakes that may occur. But if an appointment takes place and someone feels that his or her rights have been violated, an independent tribunal will deal with the issue, that is why an independent tribunal has been created. The person can be heard by the tribunal, with his or her union representative, and indicate that favouritism was shown. If the tribunal comes to the same conclusion, on the basis of the evidence that is presented, it can order the appointment revoked.

It seems to me that we can strike a balance between this authority delegated to the deputy head and the right of employees to have recourse to an appeal mechanism if they feel that their rights have not been upheld.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I still see a problem. It seems to me that, on the contrary, that has a restrictive effect. We are only talking about abuse of power and the employee's language of choice. The right to challenge appointments has been restricted, whether by the internal dispute resolution mechanism that would be set up by labour and management, or by the tribunal.

I think that this should not be restricted to abuse of power. We will probably be introducing an amendment that would add the word "including". Problems could arise other than an abuse of power or the fact that the candidate was not interviewed in the language of his or her choice. Other things can happen.

Why was this limited to abuse of power?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Given that the Public Service Commission is responsible for appointments and reports directly to Parliament, it is always considered the institution responsible for protecting the merit principle against any political influence. We always talk about political influence, which was a very important concern for us.

Given that the Public Service Commission is the one responsible for this in the present system, political influence is precluded. We want to maintain that.

But we heard many people express concern about bureaucratic patronage. If political influence has been eliminated, there still might be bureaucratic patronage, these people say. A number of members of Parliament have expressed that concern to me. That is why we have put more emphasis on this concept of abuse of power where the tribunal is concerned.

Do my officials have anything to add?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This idea of merit will mean that employees will have to deal with an even larger number of arbitrary decisions. We need to look at the other side of the merit coin. It is not just a case of going faster. You are giving the deputy minister or someone else responsibility for deciding who is the best. There is a big gap between abuse of power and the ability to use the language of one's choice. The decision may be even more arbitrary.

You just said that the current legislation was capable of protecting against political appointments. But by introducing the merit principle, you are creating something that is even more arbitrary. One person will be deciding that one candidate has more merit than the others. That is very dangerous. I think that employees are less well protected with this idea of merit.

The process will obviously move more quickly, but there will be a very tricky issue to resolve. In our opinion, arbitrary decisions will be much more difficult to manage than they have been, especially since you are allowing only two grounds on which decisions can be challenged, including abuse of power. There can be other things involved.

How can someone say that one skill is more important than another. It is very difficult to prove abuse of power or the violation of rights. I am a lawyer myself, and I can tell you that it is very difficult to argue that a person's rights have been violated. In my opinion, employees are going to have a hard time proving abuse of power, especially where skill assessment is concerned. I am talking fast. It may be easier to say that someone does not like us and try to prove that, but employees will find it very difficult. That aspect absolutely must be corrected, and aspects other than just abuse of power must be added.

¿ (0940)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would remind you that the current system also provides for delegated authority. It is always the deputy head or the manager that makes the decision, using that delegated authority. In the present system, employees have recourse to an appeal mechanism for which the Public Service Commission is responsible.

The Appeal Division of the Public Service Commission looks into whether the whole process for choosing the best-qualified person was followed. Employees told us that they wanted that process to focus on their individual merit, on how they were or were not selected. That is why we decided to create a process using the Public Service Staffing Tribunal.

I will ask Ms. Boudrias to add to what I have said.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You are right, Ms. Robillard, but I still want to broaden the ground for appeal. That is what I want to tell you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Boudrias (Assistant Deputy Minister, Senior Advisor, Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service, Privy Council Office): Mr. Chairman, the definition of abuse of power includes not only favouritism, but also arbitrariness and discrimination. We did not want a definition that was too restrictive because we wanted the tribunal to be able to assess all the criteria that could be considered under abuse of power.

If I may, I would like to raise a rather important point with respect to merit. There is only one difference between merit as it exists today and merit under the new legislation. I would like to correct an impression that some people have. Managers will be looking for people who meet the basic requirements. The basic requirements are what we now call qualifications or selection standards, and these will be called qualification standards in the future. For example, for a scientist, the basic requirement will merely be to have a degree in science.

The bill talks about essential qualifications. In the future, candidates will be assessed on the same aspects as today, that is, experience, knowledge, abilities, education, official languages, personal suitability and assets. All the essential qualifications for a position are considered, and that has not changed.

What has changed is the ranking on the eligibility list. We no longer want to rank the various candidates, which gives the impression that the best candidate has qualified. The top candidate may score 72.5 and the next one 72.4. All the successful candidates form a sort of pool of qualified candidates, and under the merit provision, the manager can choose, from among these very qualified candidates, the person who is the best match for the position.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Boudrias.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, Minister, and your officials, for coming here today and bringing forward some much needed changes to modernize the public service.

On the question of merit, I very much support these moves, having worked at a provincial level and going through these competitions and people being measured solely on the basis of a number of points. Someone being hired because they have 101 points instead of 100.5 points is very mechanistic, and I think this gives the managers some flexibility to look at the organization's needs and to provide a bit of flexibility. There are recourses if there is an abuse of power, so I think it's a much needed very first step in modernizing the public service.

But, Minister, in your remarks you talked about this piece of legislation being one part of the bigger equation. You may know that there's a subcommittee of this committee that's looking at modernizing the public service. Paul Forseth and I are co-chairing that. Right now we've suspended those discussions because we want to deal with this act, but I would hope that at some time perhaps you could come to our subcommittee and paint a picture of some of the longer-term issues that you see for the public service.

You talk here briefly about leadership development, reaffirmation of our core values, and ultimately a substantial change in working culture. I don't know if you want to expand on that. Maybe this is not the time. But one of the things that has come up in our consultations to date--and we're early in the process--is the need for departments and agencies to have human resource development plans. That was something that came out of La Relève. It seems that some departments are very good at this and some departments not so good. I'm wondering, is that part of the process that you see in terms of modernizing the public service, the culture within the public service, the rules-based management versus principles-based management? What are some of the issues that you think are longer term in nature that we need to deal with?

¿ (0945)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, that is a very good point. It is clear to me that the legislation is really the centrepiece, but it's not the unique solution to modernizing human resources.

I think, Mr. Cullen, you pointed out a very good issue here about human resources planning. Over the years perhaps we lost sight a little bit that our first priority is that we need the right people to deliver the services and programs to Canadians. To do so, we need to have the right people in place.

I have found out, having worked on that file myself for some years now, that a lot of our managers were relying on our HR specialists in the department to look at those items. What we would like to see as change is that the manager himself will feel that it is a priority; the HR specialist will become a strategic adviser to him, but he himself, in his responsibility as a manager, should look at the HR planning in his department.

You're right in saying that in some departments you will find that they are very good at that job, but in some they are not. So it's clear to us that we have to work on that side.

I think Jim Lahey, my associate at the secretariat, is working on that with the department.

Perhaps you can expand on that, Jim.

Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Just briefly, to complement the legislative reform, we think we need to simplify and make more usable our policy framework, what's expected. We need to be clear about what the outcome measures are that we're tracking and that we'll be reporting to Parliament. We need to make sure we support and develop the continuum of leadership, because from supervisors to deputy ministers, these are the people who have to exercise these responsibilities, and they need to be properly trained.

We need to make sure we have core learning in place. We need to emphasize values and ethics. We need to make sure that the systems that support all of this are in place. So there's a whole set of initiatives that we could talk about at your committee, if you wish, that complement the legislation.

Mr. Roy Cullen: It seems to me, with respect to human resource development plans, if you look at government, it is a people organization. People are probably the most important and integral part of the success of the organization. So I think the move to involve the deputy heads more completely in that development planning process is key, because it's part of the strategic success of a department or agency how good your people are and the extent to which you've planned ahead to build those skills.

Do I have time for a quick question?

The Chair: Yes, you do.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Minister, one of the issues we've talked about in this committee is the aspect of horizontal management and the need to do a better job at that.

In the public service the way it is organized there are structural issues. Considering that the public service is very hierarchical--there is a fairly clear delineation between line and staff--I wonder whether the public service is really organized optimally to achieve better horizontal management. Is there any thinking to examine that?

The private sector went to more matrix-style management, flatter organizations, skunk works, less hierarchical types of organizations. That may not fit within a government setting, but I'm just wondering whether the government is structured properly to achieve good horizontal management.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is a key aspect, I would say, for the future. It's clear to me that more and more the government has to work horizontally. This is a big challenge for the system because the system was not structured for that. As you know, it was more structured vertically, we say by silo, department by department. We see that they sometimes have difficulty working together. All the structures, even the expenditure management system, are not made to force the people to work more horizontally.

I think it was a committee of deputy ministers who looked at that. Jim was part of that committee, so I'm sure he could be very useful to your subcommittee to explain what they have worked on. But let me tell you that right now we are looking at how to make that happen.

Of course, when we look at an example...I'll find an example to show you. I'm thinking of all the government online projects that we have going on right now. What we have done to force the departments to work together is to have the budget for the government online projects kept centrally at the Treasury Board. We have said to the departments, in order to have access to that money you're obliged to present a horizontal project with other departments. Suddenly, we have had wonderful projects coming in.

We also have to look at the structure, and we have to maintain some incentive to bring these people to that kind of management. Right now the structure is not an incentive to work horizontally, so our managers have to be very innovative.

I'm thinking about further consultations all across the country. As you know, in each province you have managers of different departments working together on specific issues. When they want to deliver on a specific project, let me tell you, they have a headache to find a horizontal project in a specific region in the country.

I think we have to work a lot more on that side. Do you agree?

Mr. James Lahey: I do.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

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

At our last meeting around this table, you were minister of another department and you were introducing a very interesting bill.

This time, in the case of the public service bill, you have said that one of the important aspects of the legislation is learning or perhaps continuous learning. You also said that you want to bring together Training and Development Canada with the Canadian Centre for Management Development to create a new institution that will be called the Canadian School of Public Service.

I would like you to explain the reasons behind the merger of these two organizations. What will be the benefit of having a single institution? Second, what connections might this new institution have with other non-governmental institutions in Canada, such as universities and public administration centres? And what diplomas or certificates would the new school award? Do you see the possibility of creating a centre of excellence in public administration with this new institution? I am thinking of centres that already exist in other countries, and I would like to hear how you see the role of this new centre.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would like to start by clarifying that these two organizations have been in place for a number of years. Training and Development Canada, which comes under the Public Service Commission, has existed for about 30 years, I believe, and the Canadian Centre for Management Development has been in place for about 10 years. At the moment, the centre's activities are geared strictly to our managers—as is clear from the name—to try to support them in their on-going learning and updating of their knowledge. The Canadian Centre for Management Development already has agreements with universities throughout the country and even works with international organizations.

Training and Development Canada, which comes under the Public Service Commission, is there more specifically for our employees. The thinking was that on-going learning was necessary for both employees and managers. I am talking here about on-going learning, not basic training. Thus it is not involved in granting degrees. It is different from the École nationale d'administration publique of Quebec, which does grant degrees. Even though the organization is called the Canada School of Public Service, we are talking about on-going learning.

When my colleagues from Human Resources Development and Industry Canada conducted a broad consultation on the innovation strategy, there was a great deal of emphasis on having all employers provide employees with continuing education. It is all very well to try to encourage the private sector to do this, but what are we doing ourselves? Are we setting a good example? Are we providing on-going education for our employees? The answer is no. At the moment, we do not have a consistent approach to providing our employees throughout the Public Service of Canada, an opportunity to further their knowledge. We therefore decided to merge these two entities to achieve a more consistent approach and to go much further than we are at the moment, by requiring employers to provide all new employees with a program of core learning, which is a basic training or information program. Let me explain what I mean.

Let us take the example of an employee who has just been hired, a young person who has just taken a position in the public service in Victoria. How will this new public servant find out about his workplace, his rights, obligations, responsibilities, the fact that he must comply with the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and so on? Some departments do a very good job in this regard, while others do not. We wanted provision for basic training for all new employees. This applies to managers as well.

In many cases, it seems that the day on which middle managers are appointed to their position, all that is looked at is their basic management training. It might be necessary to remind them of certain points that are essential for all managers, such as responsibility for human resources, as well as financial management, information technologies, and so on. This school would become a centre of excellence to promote on-going learning within the public service, in cooperation with the departments, but also with universities and schools in Canada.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: That is it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you. I will come back later, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We'll come back to you in the second round. We're now over....

Mr. Comartin? No.

Mr. Epp.

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

Thank you, Madam Robillard. I appreciate your presentation here. I really don't want you to use this in the next election campaign, but I think your friendly personality has made some positive improvements in the morale of the public service.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Be friendly.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm saying that sincerely, but please don't use it against us.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Tell Mr. Epp there's actually a camera in here somewhere.

Mr. Ken Epp: That said, now I'm going to get down to some questions.

I have a specific question on the hiring practices in the civil service. We've talked a lot this morning already about merit. In your statement you say you want a public service that strives for excellence, that is representative of Canada's diversity, and is able to serve the public with integrity and in the official language of choice.

I have two questions that arise from that statement, which is near the bottom on page 2 of your written statement. How specifically is this going to change the affirmative action program you have in the public service now? Is there going to be a change, or will it just remain the same?

À (1000)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You call it the affirmative action plan, but we want to have a public service that is more representative of the population we serve every day. When we look at the demographics of our population in Canada right now, even if we don't take specific action, it will become a fact some years from now when we see the population growing.

Over the years we've looked at our public service and we've noticed that we have a problem with representation of visible minorities in the public service. We looked to see if we had some systemic discrimination and barriers in the system. That's why we have an action plan right now to promote the hiring of more visible minorities. With the new system we are proposing, I think it will be easier to achieve our objective of having a more representative public service.

Mr. Ken Epp: Will we actually see changes, as a result of this legislation, from what we have now? It appears to me what you've just said is what the government has already been doing.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I just want to point out that we aren't making any changes to the Employment Equity Act with that legislation. When we do that it's to respect the Employment Equity Act we have.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, that answers my question.

I have another one. On serving the public with integrity, in the last couple of years we've had several instances of really serious mismanagement of public funds in government. I'm talking about the mess in HRDC, the GST rebate scandal, and the advertising contracts in Quebec.

I can't believe that in every instance where those contracts or decisions were made, or where those processes were signed off on, somewhere in that chain there weren't civil servants who said and recognized that these were wrong and should be stopped. I think it's demoralizing to the civil service if there isn't a mechanism to efficiently get at that.

Why does your legislation not include--I'm not even saying full whistle-blower legislation--a mechanism whereby an individual who sees something is wrong has a way of bringing that out and correcting it without putting his or her own job at risk?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It's a very good question. We found out two years ago that we didn't have any formal procedure or policy. We have a lot of policy at the Treasury Board Secretariat--too much policy. Two years ago, during an internal discussion, I remember asking my officials whether we had something very clear for an employee who wanted to disclose any wrongdoing in the system. Did he know what to do? If his manager was at stake, what should he do? Believe it or not we did not have any formal policy.

So we designed a policy on internal disclosure of wrongdoing saying what an employee should do internally in his department if he finds out that something is going wrong. And if he is not satisfied with the way he is treated in the department, we appointed a Public Service Integrity Officer, Dr. Keyserlingk, some time ago. An employee should go to his manager or somebody in the department who is appointed for that, but if he is not satisfied or thinks there may be some reprisals in his department, he can go directly to Dr. Keyserlingk, who will deal with what is going on in the department.

We've had that policy now for not more than a year. I'm expecting Dr. Keyserlingk's first report evaluating the process in a few weeks. He's supposed to table that in Parliament. We will see what he thinks about this system. I think it is a very good first step to clarify that for our employees.

À (1005)

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Robillard.

Perhaps we should call Mr. Epp when he tables his report.

Given the nature of that question, I let the questioning go on somewhat over our four-minute limit on the round.

Monsieur Lanctôt, I will of course offer you the same courtesy, although I'm sure your questions will be put much more precisely.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. There are many things I wanted to say.

Did you ask Mr. Keyserlingk to produce a report?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is a Treasury Board policy on the internal disclosure of improper actions. The policy was designed and adopted by the ministers of Treasury Board and implemented throughout the government. However, Dr. Keyserlingk does not come under me, because I am the employer. He is completely independent and has an independent office. His report will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister responsible for the Privy Council.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: When?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think he is supposed to be tabling it at the end of March. Is that correct?

Mr. James Lahey: I do not know exactly. It covers the period ending at the end of March.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It covers the period ending at the end of March. So it should be tabled soon. I do not have the exact date, but we can check on that, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is fine, but I would appreciate having the report before dealing with the bill. I think it would have been interesting to see what the report says.

I will not repeat Mr. Epp's comments, but there have been a lot of scandals. Even when we ask questions of people like deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers, we realize, although it is not said explicitly, that they cannot say everything. There should be some protection. Why not include provisions on the protection of whistle-blowers in this new bill, which is so important. This is now part of the system. People have to answer, and they should not be afraid to answer when they see these things happening in the public service.

I'm going to go back to the example of the firearms registry. Things are so ridiculous that this week Mr. Rosenberg came and told us that everything was fine and that he did not even know the term... The Public Accounts Committee will definitely be asking you some questions about this in the near future. Even the deputy minister told us some things that we cannot believe. Even the deputy minister is afraid to answer our questions. Imagine what it is like for all those below that level and who see improper things happening. I fail to understand why there are no provisions in this bill to protect whistle-blowers.

What worries me even more, is that the Canadian Alliance has introduced Bill C-201, I believe, and the government party will not even dare discuss it. So that gives some indication of what you intend to do as regards protecting public servants.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I am going to tell you where we started, what we have done, and how we see the future.

As I was explaining to you earlier, two years ago there was no official policy regarding the way in which individuals could disclose wrongdoings in the system. I remember that at the time, there was a private member's bill on the subject put forward by Senator Kinsella. We looked at the issue very closely, because there was no mechanisms in place in the system. The question whether we should start by introducing legislation immediately or rather an administrative policy on this? That is what we did in a number of other areas, such as our anti-harassment policy. So we wondered whether we should move to legislative approach immediately.

We looked at this carefully. I remember very well that I asked my officials to look at what is done in other countries, because some countries do have legislation on this. Why did they opt for the legislative approach? We found that the countries that passed legislation often did so as a result of a major crisis in their public service. From all evaluations, and from my continuing evaluation of this situation, I do not think that there is a major crisis within the public service. I am not saying that there are no problems, but I do not think that there is a major crisis throughout the public service.

We therefore decided to adopt a policy and to state in it very clearly that employees who disclose actual wrong doings would not be subject to reprisals. There was to be protection for such employees. And should there be no such protection, we established a public service public interest commissioner, namely Dr. Keyserlingk.

When I implemented this policy, I made it clear that we would see how it worked. If there is proof that the policy is not adequate and effective, we may look at the legislative option. I have not yet received Dr. Keyserlingk's report, but if I am given proof that the policy is completely ineffective, we may consider legislation. However, this would not be part of the Public Service Employment Act. It would be an independent piece of legislation, as it is practised in other countries. That is why this point is not mentioned in the bill you have before you.

À (1010)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Can you make public the studies that were carried out in other countries? Could we see them?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. If you want to study this matter, I am quite prepared to show you what we did.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do I have a little time left, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Une autre fois.

Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you, and welcome, Madam Minister. We're very glad to have you with us and to start work on something that I think is extremely important.

You mentioned earlier the issues around the horizontal approach to dealing with the departments. In all of the reading I've done on the history of our federal government, it talks about the need for that to happen, but it also recognizes the immense difficulties in trying to find a way to go across on a horizontal basis. So it was very interesting to hear your comments on how you set up the initiative and how quickly that brought things into place in some areas.

How else can we achieve the goal of more horizontality here in the federal government?

Mr. James Lahey: I think there have been a lot of experiences of different kinds, different kinds of projects. For example, we talk about Team Canada in the trade area. You get the departments that are involved in trade cooperating to support the Prime Minister and premiers in visiting countries to promote Canada's trade interests. We could multiply that with other examples.

The basic problem, I would say, is that the accountability system has everything moving towards one minister being accountable for a particular topic. When you start combining the efforts of different organizations, it becomes murky who is actually accountable for the outcome. This is, frankly, the problem that isn't really solved.

There are ways one could imagine it. I believe there's a project under way to start in I think Regina and one other city--I can't remember it--to try to work together more actively on urban aboriginal issues. So that's an experiment.

One of the things we've noticed, though, is that there's an urban myth, so to speak, in the public service that the rules and regulations make it impossible to pool resources, to bring people together. We actually just published in the Treasury Board Secretariat a guide for managers that illustrates all the tools available to pool resources and to bring people together. These kinds of practical things will help.

I think we need to experiment more. We can build it into the performance agreements of leaders that they should work together on particular projects, and we can hold them jointly and severally accountable for their performance. Those kinds of things, I think, can help us to move forward.

À (1015)

Ms. Judy Sgro: It also outlines, though, the issue where each silo is very protective of that silo. It has a lot to do with changing the attitude that we are all jointly paid by the taxpayer and we jointly come together to solve the problems.

One of the other issues we seem to notice a lot within our public service--and, frankly, I think people who work for the public service need to be appreciated and admired for their contribution--is that so often there is low morale in some people when you're talking to them. I think this new look in the public service really provides that opportunity to let people know they are appreciated very much by all of us, that we are all in this together, and that we are trying to move the Queen Mary along jointly. We all have an interest here.

In the private sector it seems quite simple when you need to hire someone. Whether you do it inside a large or a small corporation, you put an ad in the paper, someone responds, and you do the interview. It doesn't seem to take too long to decide who is the right person.

Will we be able to streamline our operations here under these changes to the act to make that process simpler and easier?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, let me comment on your first point about the low morale and perhaps tell you that when I started to work on the HR modernization, I found there was a lot of skepticism in the system. Employees and managers looked at me and said, oh, we'll see. There was a lot of skepticism, and I think people in the end were surprised when we finally tabled our legislation. Just the fact that we've started a public debate is, I think, a positive sign for our workforce and the system.

Will we succeed in streamlining the process? I would say that the staffing part of this legislation does exactly that. I saw the report of the Auditor General, I think about a year and a half ago, proving that it takes an average time of 119 days to hire a permanent worker in our system. Can you imagine what that means for a manager? Just think about a young graduate who's looking for a job. If he applies to the Public Service of Canada and he applies at the same time to the private sector, as you said, and it takes us almost six months to decide that yes, we'll hire you on a permanent basis, well, we'll lose that young person.

The system is so slow and cumbersome right now that we cannot compete with the private sector, or, I would say, with provincial organizations either, all because of that outdated system. This is why we brought out the new definition of merit in the legislation, to get rid of all the jurisprudence that makes for that cumbersome system. Yes, there's a hope that with the new system we will be able to act more quickly and also that it will help us to hire more permanent employees. When managers have found out that it takes so long to hire somebody, what they've done is go the other way and look for short-term employees. It was a way to avoid that very complex system.

That's why we're bringing in this new legislation, hoping we will be able to compete. But let me be clear; we will never act the way the private sector does in that respect, because we have, as you know, other interests here.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Sgro. There will be yet another round.

I note that the minister's depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for this subject mean she has to provide extremely complete answers. Perhaps we might just pull all this down a little bit.

Mr. Valeri, I believe you are next. Could we please have tight, well-focused questions?

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): I just have a couple of questions, and they'll be very tight.

One question has to do with your reaction to the 2000 report of the Auditor General. You make the comment that there's no single body that is actually responsible for the legislative or the institutional framework for the human resource agenda for the public service. That was a criticism they had, and I know the legislation shifts some responsibilities among the three particular organizations. How do you react to that? Does this legislation go in the direction the Auditor General is suggesting? Are you reacting to what the Auditor General has said? Are you answering their call for greater accountability?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We looked very closely at the report of the Auditor General, but also at all the reports we've received over the years--I don't know how many reports--saying that here you should clarify the responsibility and the accountability in the HR system. The Auditor General was, I think, quite clear on that, and I remember in the report there was an illustration that tried to show where the responsibilities were.

Yes, through that legislation we've clarified the responsibility of everyone in the system, including the Public Service Commission itself, the Treasury Board as an employer, and the deputy heads, who will have delegated authority yet should also be accountable for the decisions they make.

I don't know if you will have the Auditor General here, but I can imagine she will be satisfied with the step forward we're taking. I haven't talked to her, so I can't imagine how she will react to that legislation.

Mr. Tony Valeri: The other question I had has to do with a topic that's come up previously with the horizontal government and horizontality. When you talk about incentives that you need to build in, my reaction is always essentially that the incentive for greater horizontality in government is about money. Departments compete for money.They have plans and priorities for their budgets, and then when we talk about horizontality, it seems to be on an ad hoc basis, which means they have to find the money somewhere within their budgets to participate, and they're very reluctant to do that. So I'd be interested to hear a bit more about your incentives. But I'm also very interested in hearing about what I think is even more important than the incentive, which is how do you measure the outcomes? How do you measure whether you're achieving what you intend to achieve on a horizontal basis? Ultimately that's what it's all about. I know there's probably some work going on there and I'd be interested to hear about that.

Also, to pick up on what Ms. Sgro mentioned in terms of the accountability, or what Mr. Lahey said about the accountability, I'd like to know your reaction to the Auditor General's report when she talks about the accountability framework and the idea that within a framework we actually can have greater accountability to do more horizontal initiatives, and that you're no longer vertically accountable but you are accountable to each other. You might be accountable at different levels of government, different ministers. I'd like to hear your reaction to that and as to whether it's a workable framework.

Mr. James Lahey: On the question of incentives first, I like to think perhaps that the best incentive is to be effective; that is the best incentive to work together horizontally. The problems, as you well understand, don't manifest themselves under the silo principle. They're mushy and cut across.

To give one concrete example, in the past I was involved in work on children's policy, which at the federal level involved Health Canada, HRDC, Indian and Northern Affairs, and I think other departments, and of course the provinces. Some of the agreements on child policy end up giving different roles to different players. For example, in the federal-provincial context, the feds pay income support through the national child benefit and money is spent by the provinces on services and so on, but there's a joint reporting that they are doing, I believe annually, about what's happening under this.

That's one example. It's moving into your second point about the accountability, but I'd make one other point, which is that I really do think this question of how you reconcile the responsibility of ministers to account to Parliament for what is voted and what is in their area of responsibility, with the confusion that can arise when you have multiple parties involved.... I know this committee and the subcommittee are looking at all of these questions, and I think you might even be able to help us all in terms of going into this in more depth and looking at how we reconcile this with the estimates process and how ministers and officials get held to account. But in principle, I think the Auditor General is on the right track. I think you can create a framework and be clear about the parts and the roles people play.

À (1025)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Perhaps one of the examples you could look at in your subcommittee is what we are doing right now on the security measures. You remember that we had a budget for security alone of over $7 billion. There the Secretary of Treasury Board plays a role by following up on all these measures and, at the end of it, measuring the results across departments and obliging all the departments to have the same measures. We look at that very closely. It will be perhaps useful to put that on the table and see how we can go further with you.

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

I note now that we are going to enter into our last round.

Mr. Tirabassi, I have you on the list.

We'll start with Mr. Forseth, Mr. Lanctôt, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Tirabassi. I believe I have Mr. Cullen on for a second round. And seeing no other hands, that will be the list. That will be a series of tight, well-focused questions and answers. I remind members we are moving into a short business meeting at the conclusion of the minister's presentation, so don't anybody attempt to leave. Thank you.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I want to go back to the topic of reporting wrongdoing. You say you have a long-memo policy, and I read that and it looks reasonably good. Of course, all of us as citizens have a duty under the Criminal Code to observe and report wrongdoing of a criminal nature, and if we don't do so, if we fail to do so, we become a party to the crime.

But in terms of the regulatory nature of wrongdoing, or the appearance of wrongdoing, within a work site you have a policy, but you've already said to us today that this was somewhat on your initiative, that you said we needed a policy and so you created one. But you might not be the minister next year--it could be somebody else--and that policy could come and go. It's just a memo.

So I'm wondering why in the legislation you did not at least root your memo in the statute to say that there shall be a policy of wrongdoing, and then you can leave the details to administrative regulation, but at least the statute will say there shall be such a policy established. Why did you miss that in this bill?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, let me tell you that this is a Treasury Board policy. This is not a policy linked to myself; this is a Treasury Board policy.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, but it sounds like it came from your initiative.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Even if tomorrow I'm no longer the President of Treasury Board, Treasury Board will still be there, because it is one of the rare committees whose foundation is found in the Constitution of the country. So I think it will still be there.

Having said that, I think we as an employer have a lot of policies, and I don't think we need to have a legislative base for all the different policies we have in the system. Perhaps Mr. Lahey could elaborate on that.

À (1030)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Before we go on, I would like to say that obviously this is a great concern to legislators. There have been several bills before the House and Senate, and this is an international concern. So I would observe that it seems to be an oversight, and that in all of what we're trying to do at least the legislation should say there will be a wrongdoing policy established for the public service. It doesn't have to go into actually describing what it is, but it should say there shall be one.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think, Mr. Chair, you're at the beginning of your work in the committee. We'll see what your witnesses and your work will do, and I will follow that very closely.

The Chair: We can revisit that when we come to clause-by-clause.

Thank you, Mr. Forseth. Mr. Forseth managed to hit three minutes exactly.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I am going to continue the same line of questioning I was following earlier. The problem is that an integrity commissioner will make some recommendations. They are not mandatory. Legislation would give these people real protection. A commissioner or an ombudsman is all very well, but the problem... We see this even in the case of the privacy commissioner. He makes recommendation and they are just set aside. A commissioner may come up with certain findings, but we know that these situations and problems exist. It is clear that we need legislation on this. I would like to hear your views on the matter. An administrative approach and recommendations are all very well, but people need protection. Employees need protection, and only legislation can give them that.

The same is true of harassment. You have an anti-harassment policy, but the survey results released in December show that one employee in five, of the 95 000 individuals surveyed, said they had suffered harassment. It is not true to say that your anti-harassment policy is working. One person in five of a total of 95 000 people surveyed is a huge number. The problem must be dealt with. You have a golden opportunity to do so. The act has not being amended for 35 years. Are we going to wait another 35 years to make some provisions in an act to protect people who are victims of harassment and to protect whistle-blowers as well? The time is for action. Do not come back to us in 35 years.

The same is true of the official languages. You know as well as I do that if it were stated, at least in the preamble to your bill... These things happen; they are not uncommon. I have two examples of legislation that refer to the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the preamble: the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialisation Act. I am well aware that the Official Languages Act is in place, but if it is mentioned in a preamble, that will give it greater strength and force the public service to comply with it.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If I have only three minutes to reply, I have a problem.

First of all, you talk about an integrity commissioner, and you say that it would be preferable to have legislation, but you say that we have a Privacy Commissioner, and that has not changed things much. I am having difficulty with your statement, because the Privacy Commissioner's position was established through legislation.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could you give me a more specific answer?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You should not think that legislation will solve all the problems. I have looked at this closely, and I remember looking at a report by the Auditor General as well, who was Mr. Desautels at the time. We could look at that report again. It was a chapter on values and ethics in the public service. The recommendation was that we have a policy on this and that legislation would be a sort of last resort, if we were unable to achieve our objectives otherwise. So I repeat, we will look at the results of your work.

You referred to the policy on harassment. It is one thing to have a good piece of legislation or a good policy, but its implementation is quite a different thing.

I think we have an excellent policy on harassment at the moment. It was developed in cooperation with our union representatives. When we heard the results of the survey, both the union and management representatives were astounded and very concerned. We have a follow-up committee with the unions in place at the moment; and there will be focus groups in some departments to see what is happening there. We do have a very good policy, but there is a problem as regards its implementation. And even if we had a very good act, there would also be a problem. These focus groups are to be meeting in the next few weeks.

Thus, ultimately, the results achieved depend on the way in which a policy or statute is implemented on a day-to-day basis. That is my objective. I will also be looking at the committee's findings.

À (1035)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Robillard, if I understand correctly, there are no changes being proposed for the sections that deal with political activities. Am I correct on that?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: There are some changes in the fact that we clarify more in that legislation, and we are also adding the municipal and territorial elections.

Am I right, Ranald?

Mr. Ranald Quail: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That's the addition?

Mr. Ranald Quail: But we also changed the way in which we go about it, Mr. Comartin. In the present act, essentially everything is prohibited unless it's allowed. We've changed the basis as we've approached this so that everything is allowed unless it's prohibited.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have a particularly nasty incident that occurred in the Windsor area where a supervisor was selling memberships in a political party during the course of a recent by-election.

So I have two questions. Would you agree with me that this type of activity is clearly prohibited under this legislation? And if it is, I'd like to see somewhere it's pointed to. Second, the complaint that was laid by the individual who was offended by this conduct has still not been resolved. So is there some reassurance you can give this employee that it won't take nine months to resolve a complaint of that nature? I certainly poisoned the workplace for him.

Mr. Ranald Quail: Mr. Chairman, the new regime, if I could quote from the legislation, allows employees to:

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

The political activities are defined in the legislation, and they're defined as carrying on an activity in support of or against a candidate in an election or a political party, or seeking to be a candidate or being a candidate in an election. As the minister has pointed out, this covers now federal, provincial, territorial, regional, and municipal.

The public service can, in the new legislation, make regulations through the Governor in Council specifying political activities that are deemed to impair that ability. The responsibility for carrying out investigations where there is a complaint laid would be the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. That is fairly well detailed, Mr. Comartin, in the legislation.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Tirabassi.

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

I would like to thank the minister, and certainly her officials, for appearing here before the committee.

Since the introduction of this bill into the House, there seems to be a fairly large constituency of support, as far as the timing of this legislation goes. The entire issue of human resources has certainly come of age. As a matter of fact, the former Auditor General, Mr. Desautels, who appeared before this committee, was asked if he felt it was time to bring in this legislation and whether it would be effective. He definitely concurred in general terms, without getting into specifics of the bill, that there was a need for this bill and that it would address a lot of the challenges that are faced in the public service. Although there have been many modernization initiatives, I feel that if this is to be successful, it will have been, when we look back at the end of this exercise, due to the fact that there was an exhaustive consultative process across this country.

What was the one underlying, consistent hope or wish from the public service, which was thoroughly consulted on this, that they hoped would be achieved through this legislation to better the public service?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Oh, wow! One?

À (1040)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: One. Or two—you can expand it.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think it was to see action from the government for our employees, to send a signal that we care for our employees. I felt that when I was in the regions especially.

Two, I would say they hope we can work in more collaborative ways with their representatives.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I guess that leads to my next point. Much of this seems to be focusing, or a significant part of it, on labour relations: dispute resolutions, consultation committees, co-development. Really, when it comes down to it, employees want to do their jobs. They want to come to work; they want a healthy environment, one where they can move around freely; they want to provide the service they're there to provide. Compared with what is in there now—and maybe this would be an appropriate question for one of the officials—do you feel you needed this legislation to achieve the better relations, in place of what is there now?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say yes, simply yes. I think we have to send a very clear signal that we need that collaboration, especially with unions. The unions represent the employees, and we as an employer work with our employees. We work for the same people: those people deliver the services to Canadians. So we should find a way to work more in a collaborative manner—unions and managers—for our employees who deliver the services.

That's why, in the legislation, you find that there will now be mandatory labour-management committees in each department to deal with the workplace issues they have in each department. This is a way to encourage dialogue between the two. We will encourage co-development—that means with the unions—to analyse some problems, to look at some options and some solutions, and ideally to agree on solutions. So there's a lot here to send a signal through the system that we really need this.

The final objective of it is to have employees who are motivated, happy to work for the Public Service of Canada, and who then deliver better service to Canadians. That's the final objective here.

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

Mr. Cullen has indicated that he will relinquish his time in order for us to deal with our business meeting.

I want to make one final comment. They say that success in the new economy depends upon how well you manage information and how well you value your human resources. So I think this is an exceptionally important piece of work for the government.

I think the rather remarkable unanimity you see around the table, with so many interests represented, is a testimony to the quality of the work that you and your officials have done over the last couple of years.

I have been subjected to my first detailed briefing from Mr. Quail and Madame Boudrias. It was first class. I really appreciated the quality of the information that was prepared and presented and the willingness to get into this in great detail. I think I can say on behalf of all members that we're going to take this very seriously, and we want to go through it in some detail, but we'll try to get it done as expeditiously as we can so that you can get on with the work.

So thank you for your appearance today. I trust we'll have you back before the committee before too long.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You can be assured of our availability for whatever you need to do your work.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now, for the information of the members, I am going to recess for literally 90 seconds, to give the board a chance to switch over to take us in camera. So please do not leave your seats--lock the doors, please--and we'll get on to business right away.

[Proceedings continue in camera]