;

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

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

1535

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

Mr. Scott Serson (President, Public Service Commission of Canada)

1540

1545

1550

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

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

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Scott Serson

1555

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Scott Serson

1600

Mr. Gaston Arsenault (General Counsel, Public Service Commission of Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Scott Serson

1605

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

M. Scott Serson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

1610

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Raymonde Folco

M. Scott Serson

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Scott Serson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

1615

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

1620

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Scott Serson

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1630

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Scott Serson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Scott Serson

1635

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Scott Serson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Scott Serson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

1640

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Lawrence Strong (Former Chair, Advisory Panel on Senior Level Retention, As Individual)

1645

1650

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Joanne Toews (Chair, Human Resources Council, Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources) Human Resources Development Canada, Human Resources Council)

1655

1700

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

1705

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Lawrence Strong

1710

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Joanne Toews

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Joanne Toews

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Joanne Toews

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Joanne Toews

Mr. Paul Szabo

1715

Mr. George DaPont (Vice-Chair, Human Resources Council, Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources) Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Human Resources Council)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Joanne Toews

Mr. George DaPont

1720

Mr. Lawrence Strong

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Lawrence Strong

1725

Mr. George DaPont

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. George DaPont

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Ms. Joanne Toews

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Joanne Toews

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Lawrence Strong

1730

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Lawrence Strong

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Lawrence Strong

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. George DaPont

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Lawrence Strong

1735

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 019

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), on the study of the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003. We're going to take our votes with respect to the supplementary estimates.

We heard testimony from various departments that report to this committee, and we are going to walk through these votes now. I believe you have in front of you a document that outlines the procedure. I'd like to begin with votes under Treasury Board, votes 2b and 15b.

TREASURY BOARD

Secretariat

^ç	Vote 2b--The grants listed in the estimates..........$1

(Vote 2b agreed to on division)

^ç

Vote 15b--Compensation Adjustments--To authorize the transfer of $1,082,220 from Treasury Board Vote 1, and $375,517 from Treasury Board Vote 10, and $663,000 from Treasury Board Vote 20, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2002-2003 for the purposes of this vote and to provide a further amount of........$91,360,263

(Vote 15b agreed to on division)

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Department

Government Services Program

^ç	Vote 1b--Operating expenditures--To authorize the transfer of $6,020,000 from Public Works and Government Services Vote 10, Appropriation Act No. 2, 2002-2003 for the purposes of this vote and to provide a further amount of....$66,325,191

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

^ç	Vote 5b--Capital expenditures.......$120,580,000

(Vote 5b agreed to on division)

Communication Canada

^ç	Vote 20b--Program expenditures......$960,000

(Vote 20b agreed to on division)

The Chair: For votes under Privy Council, votes 1b, 20b, 25b, 40b and 65b, can I get a mover?

Thank you, Madame Sgro.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Department

^ç	Vote 1b--Program expenditures...$328,690

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat

^ç	Vote 20b--Program expenditures.......$1,337,000

(Vote 20b agreed to on division)

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board

^ç	Vote 25b--Program expenditures...$1,353,830

(Vote 25b agreed to)

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

^ç	Vote 40b--Program expenditures.............$252,600

(Vote 40b agreed to on division)

Public Service Staff Relations Board

^ç	Vote 65b--Program expenditures...$300,000

(Vote 65b agreed to)

The Chair: For the vote under Justice, can I have a mover, please?

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

JUSTICE

Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada Program

Vote 40b--Program expenditures...$311,000

(Vote 40b agreed to)

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Program

^ç	Vote 45b--Program expenditures...$287,858

(Vote 45b agreed to)

The Chair: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now resume our review of Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We have before us today the Public Service Commission of Canada, Mr. Serson, along with a number of others. Perhaps you can introduce yourselves and then begin with your opening statement.

Mr. Scott Serson (President, Public Service Commission of Canada): Okay.

I have with me Greg Gauld, the vice-president, policy, research and communications; Gaston Arseneault, our general counsel, legal services; and Maureen Stewart, who is director, statutory instruments, in the policy, research, and communications branch.

I'm pleased to be here today to share the perspective of the Public Service Commission regarding the proposed new Public Service Employment Act. The commission is Parliament's overseer of the merit-based staffing system in the public service. The Public Service Employment Act portion of the bill will provide the PSC with the authorities and guidance for the foreseeable future. This is an important opportunity for us to recommend some refinements.

We have prepared a submission that sets out in some detail the views of the commission regarding the proposed new legislation. I believe everyone has copies.

[Translation]

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will outline very briefly the PSC's overall position on the bill. Then I would like to take a minute or two to describe how we expect to fulfil our responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the appointment process under the new system. I would like to end by discussing a couple of implementation challenges.

My underlying message regarding Bill C-25 is that the legislation is good. With a few changes, it can be made even better.

We believe it is important to make the bill as good as it can be because the public service is one of Canada's most important institutions, and the well-being of the public service directly affects the well-being of the country.

¹ (1540)

[English]

The proposed legislation offers an opportunity to increase the flexibility of the staffing system so that managers can respond quickly to the evolving needs of Canadians. This change is needed, and we support it.

Increased staffing authority for deputy heads and the greater discretion for managers contained in the bill is counterbalanced with measures to safeguard against such abuses as political and bureaucratic patronage. It is a significant challenge to find the right balance between flexibility and fairness.

While the legislation does provide a good number of safeguards, the provision that allows managers to establish qualifications, operational requirements, and organizational needs could open the door to the potential for abuse, especially the possibility of bureaucratic patronage. We recommend that the PSC be given the authority under the new legislation to audit how managers use this authority, to ensure they provide a sound basis for selection.

Similarly, we recommend that Parliament provide the PSC with the authority to take or order any corrective action it considers appropriate as a result of an audit. In the 1992 amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, we were given the authority to investigate or audit any matter under our jurisdiction and to create corrective action.

We recommend increased flexibility in the exercise of the commission's authority in the provisions regarding political activities by public servants and the appointment to the public service of ministers' staff.

We also have some general observations about the recourse provisions in the bill for staffing-related complaints. While we support the proposal for the early and informal resolution of complaints, we would have favoured simplifying the system by integrating more of the existing avenues of recourse available to public servants into the proposed Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The committee may wish to assess the barriers to further integration.

Finally, we offer several suggestions aimed at strengthening the commission's independence, its effective governance, and its relationship with Parliament.

We recommend the addition of a provision to allow the PSC to issue special reports informing parliamentarians of emerging issues on an ongoing basis. We also recommend that Parliament provide guidance in the legislation with respect to the criteria for the appointment of commissioners, and that a parliamentary committee review the legislation after seven years.

In our view, it is also important that Parliament play a greater role in authorizing the funding for the Public Service Commission, as it does with the Office of the Auditor General. As the previous Auditor General pointed out, the fact that an independent agency, especially one increasingly oriented to audit, must negotiate its budget with officials of the Treasury Board constitutes an uncomfortable arrangement.

[Translation]

We believe that the independence of the PSC and the commitment of Parliament are two keys to our continued effectiveness in overseeing the integrity of appointments to and within the public service.

That brings me to the next subject I want to address today, namely the question of how the staffing system will work under the new legislation and how the current commission sees the PSC fulfilling its oversight role.

The commission would first and foremost be guided by the key provisions of the modernized legislation, and in particular the values and principles set out in the bill's preamble.

¹ (1545)

[English]

These include fair employment practices, which we take to include transparency, non-partisanship, merit, excellence, integrity, a public service that is representative of Canada's diversity and able to serve the public in the official language of their choice, and a staffing system that allows flexibility but is balanced with adequate accountability and independent safeguards.

The commission would in turn establish a framework of policies based on these values and principles to guide deputy heads in the exercise of and accountability for delegated appointment authorities.

We would seek to avoid imposing prescriptive policies and detailed procedures that could jeopardize the flexible values-based approach inherent in the proposed legislation. Instead, through our policy work, the PSC would further elaborate core principles and values to guide managerial decision-making in the staffing process.

[Translation]

While emphasizing a values-based approach and managerial accountability, we would seek to continue to enhance our capacity for oversight of the appointment process, including a healthy audit function. Where problems are identified, we would consider establishing more rigorous policy and delegation regimes, on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, the PSC would continue to report to Parliament on the overall health of the staffing system. The commission would bring to your attention progress in key areas, systemic issues of concern, and potential risks to merit.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, the legislation would create a new commission, so I'd like to highlight a couple of implementation challenges of concern to the current commission.

One of the priorities for my term as president of the Public Service Commission has been to try to strengthen the relationship between the commission and Parliament. The preamble to the new Public Service Employment Act makes it clear that the commission is accountable to Parliament, and I believe the Public Service Commission must have the opportunity to discuss its challenges with parliamentarians on a regular basis and in a focused way.

I point out, Mr. Chairman, that with the exception of a brief presentation to the subcommittee, this is the first time the Public Service Commission has been called by a government operations committee since 1996, seven years ago.

In turn, I believe your engagement contributes significantly to the Public Service Commission's effectiveness. For example, public servants begin to see that you and, through you, Canadians are concerned with equity of access to public service jobs. Your engagement will be particularly important over the next several years as the new legislation is implemented. For this reason, our submission contains some of the recommendations I referred to that could strengthen the linkage between Parliament and the Public Service Commission.

Second, the proposed legislation will exacerbate our current challenge--that is, balancing our resources between oversight activities and staffing activities. To ensure that the flexibility of fairness balance is right, we need to and want to strengthen our audit capacity. At the same time, we face serious resource pressures as we seek to move away from geographic areas of selection, a move that requires us to develop the means of coping with the resulting high volumes of applications.

The Public Service Commission will need Parliament's guidance and assistance in meeting this challenge. This is one reason why our submission highlights for your consideration an option for Parliament to play a greater role in authorizing funding for the PSC.

[Translation]

As an independent institution, we look to the Public Service Employment Act to guide us in our future activities. That is why we have taken the time to develop a written submission to the committee that contains specific suggestions for improving and clarifying the provisions.

[English]

We are ready to work with the committee to refine our recommendations and to further clarify any other aspects of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¹ (1550)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you very much, Mr. Serson.

Before we move to questions, I have a couple of points.

I'd like to first welcome the President of the Treasury Board for joining us and taking the time to listen to testimony and the questions that will be posed to our witness by members of Parliament. Thank you for coming to hear what the committee members have to say today.

As well, I'd like to thank our guests from the Forum for Young Canadians for joining us for a short while, I would imagine, as you move through Parliament and visit various committees and expose yourselves to what we do here in Ottawa.

Last, Mr. Serson, my memory may or may not serve me correctly, but if I'm not mistaken, I think I was actually in the chair in 1996 with the government operations committee, and I think the Public Service Commission was in front of me at that time. So it may have something to do with me; I'm not sure. Nonetheless....

Mr. Forseth.

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

Mr. Serson, perhaps you could first address this broad question of the relationship with Parliament. Seeing that the new legislation kind of redrafts the whole set of rules, do you feel that the bill in its essence is satisfactory in that regard, and that you are now going to have a new era of engagement with Parliament that wasn't there before? If not, do you have any specifics on that role of reporting to Parliament that's related to the bill, a particular clause or something that's missing in the bill that needs to be fixed to more fully address the kind of relationship you see your commission should have with Parliament? I think the bill tries to go in that direction, but does it fully meet your ideals as to how it properly should be relating?

Mr. Scott Serson: Mr. Chairman, my own view is that the heart of the relationship is very much in the hands of parliamentarians. This is why I underscore the length of the timeframe. I mean, I've met bilaterally with quite a number of members of Parliament. For anyone who raises an issue related to the Public Service Commission, I either try to get there myself or get a staff member over to see them and discuss their issue. But I don't think that's a substitute for a regular appearance before a committee to discuss the challenges we face.

We do get called by the public accounts committee, but usually that's as a result of an audit by the Auditor General and we talk about a narrow slice of our activity. So I feel very strongly that we should have a regular accountability session with the government operations committee, at least once a year, if we are to have a productive relationship.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think that's going to happen. Of course, the background is we didn't have a government operations committee in Parliament for a while, so I'm sure that's going to be solved in that initiative from Parliament, you might say.

From the back-half of my question, about the legislative capacity, is there something in the proposed legislation that needs to be fixed, that would enhance that relationship?

Mr. Scott Serson: I've mentioned a few things. I don't think we've ever felt there was a barrier there to us issuing special reports, and we have produced some research reports. But we might want to strengthen that by recognizing that capacity to issue special reports to Parliament when we thought it necessary.

We would like some guidance in the bill with respect to appointment of commissioners, to make sure they're impartially appointed and would lead to a good relationship with Parliament.

I think those are the main things, other than the question of funding. One of the challenges we have faced is in terms of having the necessary budget to do what parliamentarians seem to want us to do. This is where I cite the example of the Office of the Auditor General, which seems to have that particular clause in its legislation related to financing and the ability to come to Parliament when it feels there are challenges related to its financing in terms of what Parliament wants it to do.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you're signalling us to perhaps look at the terminology around what the Auditor General has, because I can certainly see that some government in the future, or whatever, in essence could cancel legislation by the back door, by squeezing budget. Well, that's some good direction.

Now, one of the things I'll take up begins at the bottom of page 2 of your submission. You say:

We recommend increased flexibility in the exercise of the Commission's authority in the provisions regarding political activities by public servants and the appointment to the Public Service of Ministers' staff.

That is one point that has been particularly dear to me, in that we have a whole set of provisions in the bill defining what “political activity” is, and so on. I think you know my view is that the bill is too restrictive and top-down and controlling. Perhaps that section would not even stand a charter challenge related to how it prescribes and circumscribes potential political activity, especially for union employees.

Now, you've raised the issue. I don't know if later in your larger submission you have some details on that. Perhaps you can direct us by giving us your take and your prescription as to how to find that right balance we all seek.

Mr. Scott Serson: Well, we do believe that it is a balance between ensuring that public servants have the right to carry out political activities and respecting that right while protecting the right of Canadians to have a politically neutral public service. The way we looked at it was to see if we could provide some suggestions for greater flexibility when considering the requests for permission to seek nomination or candidacy.

Our recommendation is that in addition to authority to grant leave, we get authority to grant one or more leaves without pay to give us a little bit more flexibility, recognizing that the period from seeking nomination through nomination to an election is often a very long period. We wondered if with that discretion, for various political periods, plus a discretion to impose conditions requiring the employee to refrain from inappropriate political activities before a leave is taken, we might shorten the period of leave without pay and therefore reduce the hardship on the employee. That was the kind of orientation we were taking.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, I'll just hone in on that.

So you still accept the principle of the bill, that for someone to seek a nomination, they should obtain unpaid leave? Because it's my assertion that whether someone seeks a nomination or not is none of the employer's business. But if someone wins a nomination, certainly the employer should be aware of it, considering the other provisions of balance and conflict of interest.

But even being a nominated candidate should not be a barrier to being employed full time until a formal election period is entered into. Then it would be a negotiation between the employer and employee as to when that leave start date should be. Also, nowhere in the bill does it talk about how long these leaves are going to be.

So those are some of the other issues, which I think I've put to you before, and it looks like you've just left them.

Mr. Scott Serson: We accept the principle of the bill, but the latter point is one we're trying to address by getting some more flexibility so we can have some options, depending on the nature of the level of the employee and some of the factors that are already in the bill.

Monsieur Arsenault may want to add some comments on this one.

º (1600)

Mr. Gaston Arsenault (General Counsel, Public Service Commission of Canada): As the proposed bill is structured, a person would have to take leave in order to seek nomination, and this leave, if they are nominated, would last until the election. It could be a long time, if we don't know when the election is called.

The commission does support the need to seek permission and leave for nomination, but what it would like is some flexibility to say that the employee should be taking the leave while active politically or while visibly active. And in the interim, if it's an inactive period before an election is called, with certain conditions and perhaps the employee working in different areas or the like, they could work, so the penalty would not be so great.

So the commission is requesting some additional flexibility to deal with the leaves that people have to take and the conditions the commission could require of them to make the whole subject more flexible.

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

We'll come back in the next round.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

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

Thank you for coming, Mr. Serson. There is something troubling us that we think should be amended or completed. It seems there is a very narrow definition of the notion of merit and that it is being broadened to a point where this may create a problem. A problem needs to be resolved and it is put in the hands of people who could make very arbitrary decisions. In other words, if you are not in your boss' good books, you could have a problem.

The purpose of the bill, which is a noble one, is to get more involvement from representatives and unions, as well as foster better discussions between managers and workers' representatives. However, those representatives are not even consulted during the qualifying or staffing process. In your view, how could we ensure some balance in the equation? The unions are telling us they feel very left out. Some would want to be involved in the new qualifying process and set more specific criteria, while others say they do not want any co-management. But people have to at least be informed of the additional qualifications.

How can we find a happy medium? In your view, with the bill as it is currently drafted, public servants will have far more problems because of potential arbitrary decisions. Moreover, there are now only two grounds for challenging a decision: abuse of power and not having been assessed in the language of one's choice. So the result is something very restrictive in terms of challenges and there is now more room for arbitrary decisions by managers when assessing necessary qualifications.

So we think the bill should be amended. Do you also think it should be amended, and if so, how should that be done in order to ensure better balance? In other words, what must be done so that the process is not so tight that you can't move and it takes six months or a year to find an employee with the right qualifications, on the one hand, and on the other hand, not penalizing several public servants who would like to have a given position, but who do not have access to it because they are not the manager's favourite?

Mr. Scott Serson: I would like to say a few things, Mr. Chairman.

We took a very serious look at the definition of merit and preamble, and after considerable discussion, we concluded that we were comfortable with both definitions and that we wanted to preserve the flexibility that they contain. However this flexibility also concerns us somewhat and that is why, on page 5, we recommended that the PSC be given the power to audit how managers use their delegated authority to set qualifications, operational requirements, and organizational needs to ensure that they provide a sound basis for selection according to merit.

I would like to add that we already have delegation agreements with all departments. Under these agreements, the departments are being asked to discuss with the unions policy changes and information that deputy ministers and agency heads provide on a regular basis to the commission. For my part, Mr. Chairman, every three or four months I meet with union representatives and managers. We do good work. We discuss the information that the Public Service Commission gathers. I believe that the recourse concepts contained in the bill are the result of the work of this Public Service Commission committee.

º (1605)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could you come back to the two possible grounds for challenges? Why was it restricted to that extent? Why do you agree with this being so restrictive? In the end the only possible ground for a challenge would be the abuse of power. We know that jurisprudence has evolved considerably and that abuse of power is far from being the only possible ground for challenging appointments.

M. Scott Serson: To an extent I share your concern, and that is why we have asked for that decision-making authority in our recommendations. Our public service poll showed that approximately one-third of public servants have reservations about using formal recourse.

Like yourself, I am concerned about the abuse of power and about having to make an accusation against a manager. It would be difficult. The working group that produced this draft bill assured us that this notion would be interpreted liberally, but we are still concerned and that is why we want to have the power to audit the use of this authority by the deputy ministers.

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

[English]

We'll pick it up on the second round.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

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

I wanted to ask a question about the leeway given to public servants who wish to go into politics, however my colleague has already asked it. I will therefore follow up on the question put by Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Lanctôt talked about staffing. Let's now talk about grievances, recourse and complaints. I have two documents here, the summary and the document itself. In the summary, you stated that you would have preferred a simplified system and so on and so forth. You mentioned the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. You suggested that a tribunal be created, and you also said, on page 8 of your document, in paragraph 39: “With the creation of a new Public Service Staffing Tribunal, Bill C-25 falls short of this recommendation.”

Could you explain why, in your opinion, this is so and what you would either add, eliminate or establish so that it better responds to the requirements of public service employees?

º (1610)

Mr. Scott Serson: As I said, our advisory committee produced a report on recourse within the federal public service. This committee noted that federal public servants had access to 13 or 14 means of recourse and recommended several other things that are included in the legislation, including the possibility for employees to immediately speak to their supervisor about a problem.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The law or the bill?

Mr. Scott Serson: The bill. That is why we were willing to put our recourse system on the table so it could be integrated with the other systems. We simply wanted to highlight in our brief that we were not able to integrate several of these different types of recourse into the bill, which left us somewhat disappointed.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: What do you propose?

M. Scott Serson: We did not have any discussions with organizations which have other types of recourse. We simply want to ask the committee to study this issue further to see whether it is possible to integrate the other types of recourse.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Serson, at a later date, when you have thought this issue over and have arrived at a conclusion, would you be so kind as to send public servants before the committee who can tell us more about the specific recommendations which the commission might make?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): There are a number of groups who indicated a willingness to come before the committee, so we do have to have that discussion, as well. Perhaps we can include that in that discussion.

Mr. Scott Serson: Mr. Chairman, I know you're busy. Perhaps we could submit a briefing note on the subject, if that would be okay with you. We'd be happy to do that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Fine. If you would submit that to the clerk, I'd appreciate that.

Thank you, Madame Folco.

Actually you have three minutes left, if you'd like to take it, Mr. Szabo, and then we'll go to the second round.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I walked in here and there were six pages of your speech and there was a book here of 12 pages, plus appendices, etc.--and it took a long time to put together. Do you think that the cost involved and the effort involved in putting this package together was a productive experience for you and me?

º (1615)

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Because I don't, and I want to raise that with you. I couldn't possibly read it all and still pay attention to you and then ask questions.

This is part of the culture that I've seen throughout many committees. Communication between Parliament and the Public Service Commission is extremely important, but we play this game. We go through this charade, we continue to exchange paper, and yet I would rather have seen the one-page document to put my focus immediately on the things that are most important to you.

I noticed that one of the first statements that you made was that the proposed legislation offered an opportunity to increase the flexibility of the staffing system so managers could respond quickly to the evolving needs of Canadians. This change was needed and we supported it. I think that's excellent.

However, two Auditor General reports ago, as well as reported to the public accounts committee and to a bunch of other committees, one of the biggest problems we were facing was that it took so long to hire a full-time person that the culture of the entire system reverted to hiring contract people because they could get a human body in that place quicker and get the job done.

You were aware of that. And I wonder if you are satisfied now, with the direction and the initiatives that have been put forward, either in the bill or suggested by yourself, to ensure that we don't do that kind of thing again.

Mr. Scott Serson: The short answer to that is that they will not ensure that. They will provide a base of flexibility. As the President of Treasury Board made clear in her presentation, this is an enabling piece of legislation, and as the preamble states, it will only help if managers take ownership of the flexibilities that are in here, use them, do a better job of human resource planning, and take more time to do it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'll pick it up on the second round.

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

We have about 15 minutes or so. We have an opportunity to get three more questioners in, three-minute rounds.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. A three-minute round is really very short.

I'd like to say that I appreciate your presentation very, very much. It was just about the right volume. I found it very, very illuminating to be able to listen to you with one side of my brain while the other side was digesting your presentation. I found it to be very useful. We do this all the time around here, which Paul will learn when he's been an MP for a little longer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ken Epp: Sorry, Paul.

I'd like to ask you a question with respect to the overall gist of your presentation and of what you've written here, which is that you want more flexibility as the employer. Yet we hear that the morale in the civil service is sometimes flagging. I think one of the reasons for this is that these people who are hired as employees of the government end up feeling they are nothing but chattels to be used at the whim of their employer. I think we could do a lot more to ensure they are actively involved in making decisions and that there is a great deal of fairness.

You're talking about flexibility, but just tying this in with political things, you seem to want to have a lot of power over a person who is seeking political office at whatever level. In other words, you want to be able to determine when they take their leave and to demand they do it at a certain time. If they're elected, I think it's not unreasonable to say they are are obviously no longer useful as a full-time employee. But I know that seeking election is a very costly and time-consuming thing to do, and I don't believe that you as an employer have any right at all to say that what a person is doing outside of their working hours should in any way affect their relationship with their employer.

Just for your benefit, I would like to point out that I was the first person in the place where I worked to use this type of clause in our collective agreement. I have memorized the clause, which said: “Any person seeking or serving in elected office at whatever level is entitled to ask for time off without pay, such requests not being unreasonably denied”. I was a beneficiary of this and got time off. As a matter of fact, I chose to resign my position so that they could fill it with a permanent employee. I thought that it just wasn't fair to someone else to be there as a temp while I'm sitting here as a member of Parliament and holding my job back there. So I chose to resign—but I wouldn't have had to. My employer said “We'll hold a job for you, if you go and serve our country in a capacity as a member of Parliament”.

I think you are asking, as the Public Service Commission, for way too much control, and it's going to serve to further reduce morale among the employees if you don't loosen up a bit.

What's your response?

º (1620)

Mr. Scott Serson: First of all, I want it to be clear that the last public service survey we had indicated that 84% of public servants described their organization as a good place to work. While we do hear these concerns about morale, and I'm not saying they aren't true, I want to balance them with the reality of a very substantial survey.

Second, I'd like to make it clear that this bill would make us less and less a.... Right now we have a bifurcated employer, in that the Public Service Commission does the staffing and the Treasury Board is the employer for all other purposes. In this legislation, we give a significant amount of our current authorities to the employer to make it clear there is a single employer, the Treasury Board. I think it leaves us more with the responsibility for the integrity of the staffing system and for the non-partisan nature of the public service. So this is where we come into this question of political activities.

Mr. Epp, it's certainly not the case that we're looking for more authority or control in this area. We were looking at the provisions from the point of view of having more flexibility and the possibility of exercising a little bit more judgment, so that we could give a little bit more flexibility to a public servant who wanted to be a candidate. All we were looking at was to see whether we could make it a little easier for them than the current provisions, if we had this discretion.

Mr. Ken Epp: I understand that. The danger that is inherent when you give more flexibility is that in a very subtle way partisanship can enter into it. For example, here I am and I want to run as a Liberal candidate. But lo and behold--this is just an example now--my boss is a member of the NDP. I can say that because there are none of them here today. So here we have a Liberal candidate and an NDP boss. Am I going to get a good response from that supervisor if we have different political...? Well, I guess maybe I chose two that aren't that much different, but you know what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, if I wanted to run for the Canadian Alliance and my boss was a strong supporter of the Canadian Alliance, he would bend over backwards to make sure I could keep on doing that in the workplace.

Some hon. members: No, no.

The Chair: Not necessarily.

Mr. Ken Epp: I purposely chose my example to keep partisanship out of this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. I would just like get a quick response from Mr. Serson, because we're going on six minutes out of your three minutes.

Mr. Serson.

Mr. Scott Serson: The Public Service Employment Act portion of this law is all about a non-partisan public service, so I assume that any future public service commissions would be non-partisan. I think the proposal in the legislation is that the decision would not be up to your manager; it would come to the commission to be considered in a very--I would hope--fair process.

We're just asking for a little more flexibility and discretion here to produce less hardship on the potential candidate. If we can move to a relationship with members of Parliament that is stronger and more regular, we will be reporting back to you very carefully on any criteria we use beyond what's in the draft law now to make that determination.

º (1625)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Very good.

Mr. Lanctôt, second round, three minutes. Then I'll go to Mr. Szabo and close.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do I have three or six minutes?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I know. I will be a little generous with you as well.

[Translation]

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

You have probably guessed that I want to come back to the issue of staffing and perhaps also the issue of whistle-blower protection. There are no provisions addressing that issue, and that is a huge omission.

Witnesses who have appeared before the committee today have told us that the issue could be addressed by other means, but that it has to be done. As for me, I think it is unfortunate if we do not address it immediately, because we have been asking for an overhaul of the legislation for 30 years now and I would not want to have to wait another 30 years for the law to address that issue if, in the meantime, the administrative policy will have proven to be useless. I think we are missing a golden opportunity. I think it is important for public servants to be protected when they denounce their supervisors. Of course, I would like to know what you think about this first issue.

Let's come back to the question of appointments; you talked about managers and the delegation of power. But there is a problem. If the provision can be interpreted liberally, that would be good, but there is no guarantee of that in the legislation and that is what concerns me. Different people will set the criteria. But if the eligibility criteria are not developed objectively, and if they are not enshrined in law, their interpretation may vary from one department to the next or from one manager to the next. Managers will have no objective criteria to guide them in matters pertaining to additional qualifications. What are "additional qualifications"? It will all become subjective and arbitrary and will rest in the hands of managers through the power of delegation you mentioned a little earlier. Obviously, if you delegate power, there will be greater flexibility, but as a result, the system will become more arbitrary. Will this approach really be conducive to better relations? Will it make for a better public service? Will it help to recruit more competent people? Under the new legislation, the system will be such that public servants will try to stay on the good side of their supervisor, otherwise it will be harder for them to rise through the ranks. I think there are major problems which must be addressed.

Mr. Scott Serson: Mr. Chairman, the Public Service Commission will have the authority to create staffing policies and to include them in its delegation agreements with deputy ministers. I can imagine a principle under which qualification criteria used in the selection process will have to be clear and obvious for everyone even before the managers start the process. One of the principles could be that the process must be transparent. I think it is really related to the recourse system.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That worries me, because the only real grounds for challenging a decision would be abuse of power. Try proving what you just said. You say that when the transfer is made to managers, there will be specific criteria. Now try telling me there are several ways to proceed which do not consist of power abuse. A public servant who wants the appointment and is not on the boss' good side will have a real problem because there is just one way left to challenge a decision, even if your criteria...

º (1630)

Mr. Scott Serson: That is exactly why the PSC wants the power to check how deputy ministers use that power to define necessary qualifications. We want to check that and if we note problems...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: They must submit them to you beforehand?

Mr. Scott Serson: I do not think we could just ask them to submit all that because that would be a huge amount of work. However, we have a principle and we would like to have the power to cancel competitions and order deputy ministers to redo them if, after checking a sample of the competition, we noted, for example, that 5 or 25 per cent of the managers had used the statement of qualifications to find a specific person. We want to have some way to tell managers to be careful of the way they use their power. We want to be able to tell them that they do have some flexibility, but that they must be fair, because the PSC has the power to oversee the situation and could discover that they tried to do something unfair. That is a concern to you and it worries us as well.

[English]

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

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. Mr. Szabo.

[English]

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

I wish we had more time, because you have some excellent points for discussion. I think it's important that we build on this experience, and if we haven't had an opportunity to have the dialogue and communication you believe these points deserve, we have to ask and make arrangements, or somehow figure out a way we can have the time. This is too important.

I'd like to raise one specific example, something I would really like us to seriously consider as an amendment to the bill, and that's recommendation 8. The specific recommendation is “While the Bill allows the PSC to issue an annual report to Parliament, no mention is made of special reports...”. We should be able to do special reports. That could be explicitly written. I think that's very good.

However, in the annex it elaborates on recommendation 8 and gives its intent. Let me read it into the record, Mr. Chairman, as this is very important.

The Commission may, at any time, make a special report to Parliament referring to and commenting on any matter within the scope of the powers, duties and functions of the Commission, where in the opinion of the Commission, the matter is of such urgency or importance that a report thereon should not be deferred until the time provided for transmission of the next annual report of the Commission.

That statement is much more serious than the recommendation that is in the body of the report. I think it's the recommendation we should consider. It concerns me that the PSC would be in a position where, if there were a matter--and I suspect there has been in the past--they would not have a venue to be able to address emerging issues that affect the Public Service of Canada and therefore all Canadians.

Could you comment?

Mr. Scott Serson: I don't want to imply that we saw this as a major bar to producing reports. Mr. Epp and others know that we've done research reports on a regular basis and shared them with parliamentarians.

I think we were concerned about this because if we move to a situation--and this is the direction in which the bill seems to be moving us--where more of our oversight capacity is devoted to audit, like the Auditor General, we might have a significant audit or a series of audit findings and would not want to wait for the annual report to share them with Parliament. This would just be a way of having some certainty that we could share those findings in a more official way than we currently do with our research reports.

º (1635)

Mr. Paul Szabo: My time is up.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): So you're drawing a distinction between your ability to produce research reports essentially when you like and reporting audit-type reports.

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Serson, and the rest of the witnesses.

I would also like to mention that I think your testimony and certainly your brief have been very helpful. May we, on review of this bill, perhaps call you back to the committee?

Mr. Scott Serson: I'd be more than happy to help you in any way I can. It's an important bill for us.

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

I will suspend the proceedings while we allow our next witness to come to the table.

º (1640)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'd like to resume our review of Bill C-25 and welcome Mr. Strong, Madam Toews, and Mr. DaPont to the committee. Welcome.

Mr. Strong, would you like to start?

Mr. Lawrence Strong (Former Chair, Advisory Panel on Senior Level Retention, As Individual): Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to appear here today.

The Public Service Modernization Act is a critical step in renewing and revitalizing the federal public service. Despite spending my entire career in the private sector, I believe it is vital for all Canadians that the public service remain not only representative and non-partisan, but also professional, effective, and relevant in the eyes of citizens. This will not happen unless the government takes some bold actions and unless the leaders within the public service commit to making significant changes. The act your committee is reviewing is a necessary enabler to any plan of action.

You are, I'm sure, familiar with the factors that are contributing to the need for change. Firstly, citizens are demanding greater accountability, improved service, greater openness, and above all, results.

Secondly, we are in the midst of an explosion in technology and we must deal with the new economics of information.

Thirdly, due to demography the public service faces a very significant exodus of people over the next decade, and this is happening at a time of entering a very tight labour market for talented people.

Fourthly, the responsibility for human resource management is currently organized in an unnecessarily complex way and there is an urgent need for clear accountabilities, matching authorities, and streamlined human resource management processes.

And finally, labour relations just must be improved.

When I consider this total picture, I believe the public service faces a very real crisis with respect to its human capital. It is not the type of crisis that unfolds by the hour, but it is one that if unaddressed will lead all too quickly to a diminishing capacity within the public service both to develop and execute policy, and to design and put in place well-run programs.

I want to stress that dealing with these challenges and turning the current situation around will take committed leadership, both political and within the public service. It will also take time and will require investment. However, the rewards will be apparent to all Canadians.

To move forward, the key requirements, in addition to inspired and committed leadership, are a significant cultural change within the public service and significantly upgraded management of human resources. The reason these are so important is very simple: the future level of excellence of the public service will be determined by the quality of its people and how effectively they work together.

I'm certainly no expert in the details of this legislation, but as a long-time CEO, I have looked at the proposed act very much from the top down and asked myself how the act will contribute to making these key requirements happen. Will it give the public service leadership the necessary freedom to act? Will it facilitate required cultural change? And finally, are the accountabilities for human resource management clear?

Broadly, I'm satisfied that the answers to these questions are yes. We are definitely moving the agenda forward, and in some areas I believe significantly so. But a lot remains to be done once this act is passed into law.

The very tabling of the new act is a positive sign that our elected representatives understand there is a problem and are willing to deal with it. Your committee, with its detailed review, has a unique opportunity to reinforce the need for the new act and to ensure that the critical issue of public service renewal remains on the political agenda.

Within the public service itself the current leaders are, I believe, fully committed to the need for change, and there is among the senior levels of management an appetite for change. However, in my view it is important that we begin to see some tangible action soon.

Finally, I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board will report annually to Parliament on human resources management. This, together with the clerk's annual report to the Prime Minister, will ensure that the state of the public service is well tracked.

What impact will the act have on cultural renewal? I'm talking here about creating the desired mindsets and behaviours in the public service of the future.

º (1645)

The preambles to the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act set a positive tone and are, I hope, indicative of things to come. However, much more needs to be done if the public service is going to change from a command-and-control mindset with an emphasis on rules and an inward focus to one that is flexible, accountable, and outwardly focused with an emphasis on values and the delivery of results. We must not lose sight of the fact that in the final analysis the key ingredient will be the leaders walking the talk.

There are several aspects of the bill on which I would like to comment. Firstly, I believe that the delegation of staffing authority by the Public Service Commission to deputy heads is absolutely critical. I would have preferred to have seen this done directly in the bill, but I respect the concerns about patronage and the protection of the merit principle. I do believe that as written, things can work perfectly satisfactorily, providing the delegation does take place. Department and agency heads must recognize that they are responsible for the human resources within their organization.

Secondly, the new definition of “merit” is much needed and permits streamlining of the current appointment processes, which are too slow, too complicated, and too rigid. This is particularly important as new talent is brought into the public service. Managers need more flexibility to build the desired workforce profile. Plus, the employees of tomorrow do not wish to be part of a slow-moving, inefficient bureaucracy.

Thirdly, the creation of the Canada School of Public Service is, I think, a positive step. It puts under one roof a number of very important responsibilities. The school will play a vital role, not just in the traditional areas of training and development, but also will be an important catalyst for cultural change. To the extent that the programs offered will be leading edge, the school will also play a key role in attracting and retaining talented employees.

I do have three comments on the way the school has been set up. The object, in my view, should reflect the importance of tracking and, where relevant, using best practices from outside the federal public service. It is vital that this organization not be insular and solely inward-looking. Also, I would entrench having the Clerk of the Privy Council and the head of the public service act as the chair of the board of governors. This maintains the current practice with regard to the Canadian Centre for Management Development, and the clerk's involvement in direction-setting for the school will be absolutely essential. I would also ensure a strong representation of governors from outside of the public service. Finally, I think it is also important that there is linkage established between the training and development programs and improved results. This linkage is often overlooked.

Finally, as to labour relations, I do not have firsthand knowledge within the public service. Based upon my experience in the private sector, though, the emphasis on consultation is the key. However, it is impossible to legislate trust, and that is the most important ingredient in improving relations. This will need to be built over time. Some upfront training will assuredly be needed for all parties involved. The attempts to improve collective bargaining through more effective conflict management and enhanced mediation and conciliation can work, and some early successes will do much to set the tone.

I have a slight reservation about the Public Service Labour Relations Board actually building an infrastructure to collect compensation data rather than using outside sources. But the principle of making them responsible for compensation analysis is sound if there is a buy-in by all parties.

º (1650)

In summary, I believe that the new bill will provide a good framework for renewing the public service. It needs to be passed as quickly as possible. With its passage the real work will begin: the drive to change culture and to significantly improve human resource management and labour relations. This, to be honest, will be the fun part, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these are not ends in themselves. The desired end result is about delivering the government's vision and plans for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Madame Toews.

Ms. Joanne Toews (Chair, Human Resources Council, Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources) Human Resources Development Canada, Human Resources Council): Monsieur le président, members of the committee, first, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before this committee this afternoon.

With me today is George DaPont. He is vice-chair of the Human Resources Council and the assistant deputy minister of human resources at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Human Resources Council, which I have chaired since April 2001, is composed of a representative group of heads of human resources in the public service. It is a forum for exchange and a contributor to a strategic leadership in human resources management in the federal public service. The HR Council focuses primarily on providing strategic advice to central agencies and other key stakeholders on the proposed human resources direction and policies for the federal government.

º (1655)

[Translation]

This past November, we celebrated the council's tenth anniversary. This event gave us an opportunity to reflect on the accomplishments of the council over the last decade.

As an example, the Human Resources Council published a vision document outlining elements of the human resources regime needed for the future public service. In other words, the council has advocated for the modernization of the human resources management regime of the public service for some time now.

[English]

Our vision document outlines the demographic and social changes within Canada that will have an impact on the public service workforce between now and 2010. It also identifies the key elements of an effective human resources management framework necessary to address these future challenges. The task force on modernizing human resources management in the public service has, on numerous occasions, stated that this vision piece has proven useful in their work. And today I can proudly affirm that significant portions of the vision put forward by the Human Resources Council in the year 2000 are reflected in the bill before you today.

Features of a modern human resources regime endorsed in our vision document include the following items. The first is an HR governance structure with clear lines of accountability. The second is bargaining agents continuing as key partners with management. The third is an inclusive public service culture representative of the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity of the Canadian population. The fourth is a values-based staffing system. And the fifth is an emphasis on the public service as a continuous learning organization.

In other words, the Human Resources Council is very pleased with the proposed changes contained in Bill C-25.

For a number of years now, there has been no question that modernizing the human resources management regime was absolutely essential in order for the public service to respond to the realities of the 21st century. The current framework is obsolete, ineffective, cumbersome, and costly, allowing little room for managers to be accountable for people management. This has also had a negative impact on the credibility of human resource professionals, as they must promote and work in a system that no longer meets the operational needs of managers.

The staffing system, in particular, does not work well. It is too prescriptive and it hinders competitiveness. Over the years we have accumulated excessive jurisprudence that has created a very rigid system. For example, we face situations today where the best-qualified candidate has only two or three more points than the second-best-ranking candidate.

Our focus has shifted from the fair and reasonable treatment of individuals to a mechanical process based on points, numbers, and extensive documentation. Even the current recourse process for appeals frustrates managers and candidates with its rigid interpretation and application of the current jurisprudence and the length of time it takes to get a decision.

The bottom line is that the current system is not competitive with external recruitment practices and it is not attractive to new talent, as it is seen to be too slow and bureaucratic.

As the President of the Treasury Board, Madame Robillard, has stated, the proposed legislative changes propose a balanced approach. The new staffing regime would provide flexibility for managers to recruit and to hire more quickly, while keeping merit as the core principle of the staffing system and offering a strong foundation of protection against abuse for employees.

In fact, we anticipate that managers will move to a more standardized approach to vacant staff positions by increasing the use of pools of pre-qualified candidates, a practice that also represents an opportunity for important savings in both time and money. It will allow merit to be more closely aligned to organizational needs.

Essential qualifications in the legislation do not mean minimum qualifications. The bar is still high. The employer may establish qualification standards in relation to such matters as education, knowledge, experience, and language, and the additional qualifications enable managers to go beyond those qualifications to maintain a high-quality public service.

The new approach to merit will help managers to ensure that their workforce is representative of the Canadian population.

The proposed legislation supports the need of a new generation of public servants and HR professionals. This is legislation based on the concepts of good HR planning to ensure that the human resources of the public service are adequately aligned to the business needs of the public service.

And finally, opportunities for informal discussions contained in the appointment processes would give managers the chance to correct errors and omissions that might emerge throughout the staffing process, rather than waiting until the end of the process to do so, as is now the case.

» (1700)

[Translation]

Obviously, added flexibility for managers needs to be balanced by appropriate safeguards against abuse.

The new Public Service Staffing Tribunal will review internal staffing complaints on the grounds of abuse of authority and failure to be assessed in the official language of one's choice.

[English]

A complaint of abuse of authority can be made regarding the appointment process chosen, the assessment of an individual, the establishment of both essential and asset qualifications, as well as the operational and organizational needs identified by the hiring manager. These grounds of abuse are far-reaching, and focus on the treatment of employees rather than the process, where the focus is under the current legislation.

We also believe that public service managers faced with the complaint of abuse of authority would consider such an allegation very seriously, thus providing a strong incentive for managers to conduct their appointment processes in an appropriate manner.

With respect to staff relations, as John Fryer of the Advisory Committee on Labour-Management Relations in the Federal Public Service stated:

The relations between parties are strained; they are characterized by an adversarial approach and a lack of trust; we must change and open avenues of discussion between parties.

Admittedly, at the present time the relationship with unions varies from department to department. Some departments have developed very effective union-management consultation frameworks, while others have gone as far as establishing very interesting co-development programs, such as the DND conflict resolution model. The proposed approach to labour relations will improve dialogue and provide new tools to promote workplace harmony and address problems such as workload and conflict resolution.

We also believe that establishing mandatory union-management consultation committees in all departments and promoting informal conflict resolution mechanisms will prove to be powerful tools that will pave the way to an actual cultural change across the public service. Empowering managers and union representatives at various levels throughout the organization to sit with each other regularly can only improve dialogue and encourage the resolution of problems and conflicts where they can be best resolved--in the workplace.

[Translation]

Finally, the provision on co-development with bargaining agents reinforces this notion. Enhanced dialogue, joint problem-solving and mutually-agreed-upon solutions can only lead to more positive labour management relations in the future.

[English]

On the proposed changes to the learning regime, I will only say that we support the creation of the new Canada School of Public Service. This integrated approach to learning will lead, in our opinion, to learning activities and programs that will help achieve the cultural change inherent in the proposed legislation.

I would now like to conclude my remarks by touching briefly on the role of human resource professionals. For some time, human resource professionals in the public service have been moving to a more strategic advisory role and are actively pursuing ways to ensure that their actions and advice are more closely aligned to the needs of line managers. The proposed legislation definitely supports such a move. We welcome the emphasis on managers taking a greater role in human resource management, as they have the prime responsibility for managing their people. And this view is not only supported but also clearly set out in the proposed preamble to the Public Service Employment Act.

[Translation]

We also think that this new human resources regime will attract a new generation of human resources professionals who are better educated, with university-level training in human resources, who will find it more professionally rewarding to work with a flexible system and one that allows them to use the skills acquired during their training.

[English]

In conclusion, the Human Resources Council welcomes these changes, as we believe they will strengthen human resource management in the federal public service. The proposed legislation leads to a more advisory role for human resource professionals, and, as stated earlier, it will strongly encourage managers and human resource professionals to invest in real human resource planning to define the organizational and human capital needs in alignment with the business plans and requirements.

Added flexibility, coupled with strong and meaningful human resource plans, will also allow for greater consideration of employment equity objectives. In other words, this is an enabling bill that should allow us to truly achieve a public service that strives for excellence, that is representative of Canada's diversity, and that serves Canadians.

Thank you.

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

In our commentary I would try to direct you, if you can in your answers, to specific sections of the bill that you have a problem with and perhaps the prescription as to how we could get out of that particular problem you mention, rather than general commentary on the philosophy of the bill.

Mr. Epp. Thank you and proceed.

» (1705)

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here and giving us your wisdom.

We haven't heard from you really any criticism of the bill. Both of you say in your presentations that you support this bill, get on with it. Mr. Strong went so far as to say do it as quickly as possible, then get to work afterwards. And that is a question I have. Why is it that you propose that the real work take place after the bill is passed? What is it that characterizes that necessity?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Because all you're doing is passing a piece of enabling legislation. It isn't going to affect or necessarily change people's mindsets. In some cases you're going to have to help them change the way in which they behave, and that is the most challenging part.

If the new culture is defined as I've outlined--and I just didn't pick that out of the air, that was strangely enough part of a presentation the Public Service Commission made to me when I was chair of the advisory committee at Treasury Board, and I happen to believe it--those are significant changes. And it's not just the public servants who have to change; it's changing the whole way the politicians perhaps think about public service.

Mr. Ken Epp: This phrase keeps popping up, “cultural renewal” or “cultural change”. I would like you to be as specific as possible and I'd like answers from both of you on this. What is it about the present culture that is to be tossed, and what is it that's new in the new culture that we're bringing in for the first time?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: I wouldn't say bringing in for the first time, but what we are endeavouring to communicate is public-service-wide acceptable behaviour. I've referenced them in what I said, from rules-based to values-based.

Over time I think the public service has become excessively focused on rules-based. Part of the problem is--and you can track it as it happens as a problem--the departments said we'll make sure we don't have a problem again, so you get layers and layers of laws put in place to make sure we don't have the same and that's the way it goes.

I don't think that's the best way to deal with it. The way to deal with it is to get people with responsibility understanding in a much broader sense the decisions they are making.

Mr. Ken Epp: But that's how organizations behave.

Mr. Lawrence Strong: No, that's how the federal public service behaves.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think all organizations behave that way. If they have a problem, they're going to say we evaluate this problem, and let's set things up so that problem does not reoccur.

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Yes, but they do it in a very different way from the way the federal public service does it. Based on my experience, it's a very unique culture, and it is not one I would see as progressive. Another consequence is that if you don't change it you won't attract anybody to work here. It is not the sort of place people want to come to work if you're young today.

Now, you can re-cast that, I think, and make it very exciting. Remember, you're serving the public good, you are doing stuff for Canadians. This is the big hook. But you have to then give the people you bring in the opportunity to actually do that without layering on them bureaucracy rules.

If you look at the hierarchy, for example, that exists today, it's pretty heavy. It goes back to the days of before you had technology. It goes back to when the main role of managers was handling communication. Today, with technology, you should be able to strip a lot of those things out, because the technology puts in the hands of people all that information.

Mr. Ken Epp: But if you do that you're still process-oriented.

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Certainly on the human resource management side there are processes, but they are quite different from today. I think if I look back to the first half of the 1990s, human resource professionals disappeared off the face of the earth. I don't think they ever did anything because they were going through program review. They were obsessed with cutting 25% of the workforce and not doing it in a particularly smart way. As a consequence, you lost a lot of good people.

I don't say that unsympathetically, because it was a tough environment. So I'm not being hypercritical. Then when we came out of the review and began to get back into actually giving people some pay raises and starting to talk about the issue, I think human resources management came alive and has started to address some of this.

But for workforce planning let me give you one qualification. The public service is a large organization, and you will find pockets of good practice in most areas somewhere if you look for it. So I'm talking generally. In terms of workforce planning and identification of skill profiles that you needed on a forward-going basis, not very much of that happened routinely. Yet over 10 to 15 years, between 70% and 80% of the 25-year-plus people are going to disappear, both at management and below management. That's massive expertise. Can you imagine the corporate memory and knowledge that's going to go? It's only more recently that people have started to become aware of this, and they're starting to plan and say, my God, how are we going to replace it?

But they also have a unique opportunity, because when those people go out you can bring new people in, and that's an excellent time to begin to get commitment to new cultures. You can do it.

» (1710)

Mr. Ken Epp: We should give Ms. Toews--

Mr. Lawrence Strong: I am sorry.

Mr. Ken Epp: By the way, I have a brother-in-law, Rudy Toews, who spells his name exactly like you. Is that how you pronounce yours, too?

Ms. Joanne Toews: Yes, it is.

Mr. Ken Epp: Ms. Toews.

Ms. Joanne Toews: And I'll turn it over to George, as well, perhaps for any comments he might have.

I'm going to go back to your original question, on what should be tossed and what should be new in this. As for what needs to be tossed, I'll give you a couple of examples. With respect to staffing, because of the way the regulations work and because of the jurisprudence that has built up over the years, it is a very rules-bound process. So you have to go through a whole lot of things in order to appoint people. That has created a situation in which people are unwilling, at times, to use the staffing process and they use other processes to make their appointments.

It has also led the HR professional to be, basically, the rule-minder, the person who handles the transactions and makes sure things happen well, rather than providing the strategic advice to a manager as to how best they could do their HR planning and how best they could, over the course of a year, use various types of staffing processes to get the right people into their work.

So what the new legislation, as proposed, enables is, first of all, the departments having the delegated authority to work within a system where we can do more of this HR planning, where, because of the informal processes that the manager must use, they are going to be working with their employees very regularly to let them know what's happening in terms of various planning actions over the course of a year.

So it's going to lead to a cultural change for the role that the HR manager plays, but also for the managers themselves, because they are going to have to be--many managers already are, but some are not--very much involved with their employees and with their union representatives on the work site to talk about what's happening over the course of the year in planning. It enables a new start to how we can handle human resource management in the public service.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Can we leave it there and go to Mr. Szabo?

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

You were here during the presentation of the PSC. I'd be curious to know whether or not, Ms. Toews, you are aware of their 14 recommendations?

Ms. Joanne Toews: We've been made aware of them, yes.

Mr. Paul Szabo: When?

Ms. Joanne Toews: This morning.

Mr. Paul Szabo: This morning.

Ms. Joanne Toews: No, because of the--

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yesterday.

Ms. Joanne Toews: --processes that are involved there is no comment on that one.

Mr. Paul Szabo: That concerns me. If we talk about the need to change the culture, don't we have to talk to each other? It appears that on this very important piece of legislation, the parties who have a vested interest have not talked to each other.

» (1715)

Mr. George DaPont (Vice-Chair, Human Resources Council, Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources) Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Human Resources Council): I wouldn't say we haven't talked to each other. In his remarks Mr. Serson referred, for example, to a committee he has established, with representatives of all the unions, to look at and make recommendations on those areas of responsibility that fall under the Public Service Commission. I co-chair that committee with one of the union representatives. So in the course of those discussions, we've obviously become well aware of the general directions that were emerging.

I think what we saw this morning was the actual submission, but I don't think there are a lot of the issues that were raised by Mr. Serson that we're not aware of and that we haven't had some role in discussing.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So we're human beings and we'll be defensive when it helps, but the issue, really, is addressing, as I think Mr. Strong has indicated, one of dealing with a culture shift, a culture change.

What else is continuing to happen within the culture that has such a strong foundation that to shift it or to move it, even if it's necessary to get to where we want to go, is going to be problematic? Where are the roots the deepest that are going to take this continued work after you get the legislation?

Ms. Joanne Toews: I'll start, and I think George can add his comments as well.

Because it has been a very transactional process, the roles of both the managers and the HR professionals have been quite restricted. And when you look at modern human resource management practice, it's a very different role in terms of how you deal with people. It starts with really good planning. It starts with being open and transparent with your staff. You're not dealing with each transaction as a separate transaction. You're keeping your employees informed all the time of what's going on around your staffing and other HR practices. It's a much more holistic approach to how you're doing it, rather than being transactional. So the culture change is all around.

I'll just speak for the HR people. There are HR people who have spent their whole careers telling people this is how you do this if you want to do it right. So moving to a role that is more advisory, looking at a range of options and possibilities on a longer scale, using the sort of demographic analysis that Mr. Strong referred to are all new skill sets for them. They are new ways of working with managers from what they had before. It is quite a change in terms of the roles they're going to play.

I think that's an example of how it needs to change.

Mr. George DaPont: I would add that the bill's been described in a number of ways, but everyone has noted it's an enabling bill. It's anticipated that in a number of significant areas there are going to be policy frameworks developed that are going to take the general principles set out in the bill and figure out how you operationalize them in practice. That work obviously has to be done, and clearly, as Mr. Serson indicated, there's work to be done on what goes into delegation agreements from the Public Service Commission to departments.

What all of that is going to do is replace a lot of the processes that our managers and HR professionals have been comfortable with for the past 30 years, what they know in detail, notwithstanding the flaws. They will be replaced by different ways of doing things, for example, different techniques for staffing.

What that's going to take before we can effectively implement the provisions once these frameworks are done is that we will have to have significant training for HR professionals. We're going to have to have significant training for managers so they understand the new staffing mechanisms that are going to be available, how they're intended to work, what they're going to be accountable for, how it's going to be transparent, the expectations that are going to be put on them, and monitoring and other mechanisms that may be put in place.

We are really taking an existing process that's been there for a long time and that everyone understands, and we're going to replace it with something, parts of which have yet to be developed in detail. I think that's going to be a significant challenge in the next year or two, to prepare for implementing the bill once it's passed.

» (1720)

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Another critical part in the human resource area is the focus on performance management, how you set objectives and show people a clear accountability, and then measure and feed back. Now again, there are places in the public service where that was in place and has worked well, but there were lots of places where it just didn't take place.

For managers--not just human resource people--to learn how to sit down and be open and candid with their direct reports about their performance takes skill and some experience, because you're trying to be constructive but you also have to be very candid. So you have to buy in that these things bring value, and then you have to have some help in learning to do them well.

That's in the human resource area.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Okay, I think we'll move on.

Mr. Ritz, for a couple of questions.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an interesting proposal you folks are talking about. You talk about a cultural shift having to take place, and I'm a bit stymied by that. I've spent all my life in the private sector, and if something didn't work, we fixed it. I didn't need someone telling me how to do something or what to do. You could analyze it and do it.

I don't understand why you need new legislation, other than so you can use it as the whipping boy to tell your folks down the line that now we have to do it this way. But if you have to re-educate the human resources folks at the top to get it all the way to the bottom, it won't matter when we put this through, you'll never get there. There are too many roadblocks.

So I'm wondering where the common sense is. If there's a problem with the way you're doing it now, why do we have to have a bill with 500 and some pages in it to give you the tools to do it? Are you not just exchanging handcuffs?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: It's because the current legislation has in it a whole set of things that the Lord alone knows where they came from. They're simply unbelievable, when you come in as a private sector person. I mean, would you have the judiciary tell you what constitutes merit, if you were running your own business? That's the situation we're in now. I think it's ridiculous. To me, that is a very important part.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: It's cause and effect. The bureaucracy that has developed over the years is actually counterproductive to what we're trying to do.

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Again, when it was put in place, I'm quite sure there was a political issue and it was designed to solve something. I haven't said it, but I'm delighted you'll come back and revisit this in seven years. I really hope that in seven years you'll be able to get rid of at least half of all of the safeguards and things, and balances you put in--

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Well, you've built a union, layer by layer.

Mr. Lawrence Strong: --to make people feel warm.

I think, too, that the fact that the legislation was written with the Public Service Commission responsible for hiring led to many deputies not taking ownership of their human resources.

When you think of it--I mean, I don't know how many of you have ever been responsible for an organization--if you look at deputy ministers or agency heads, their key asset is their people, as to how well their organization does. To have somebody who doesn't even report to the employer doing their hiring for them, telling them who to hire, to me, it just blows my mind.

As a consequence, I don't believe they then got engaged in some of the other aspects of human resource management. There was no sense of ownership. Some did, and those will be the departments that today we can look at and say they're well managed. A lot of them didn't, and they're the ones that are a bit of a blot.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: If they did under the rules and regulations we have, what stopped the others? Was it just an attitude?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Taking responsibility for people is sometimes a difficult task, because it causes you some pain. There are moments of discomfort. I mean, it is called leadership. But if you don't have to do it, especially if your strength is policy, why are you going to get into something that you think you're not really responsible for?

This act, I hope, will make those people realize that they are responsible and that they have to be more actively engaged in the management of their human resources. If they can do that--and I hope John agrees--I think we're going to see a big step forward in the effectiveness of many departments.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I don't disagree with what you want to do; I'm just saying how do you enforce it? If certain departments can do it now under the rules and regulations, what's going to make the others change?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: You know, it's funny. They can, and yet particularly on some of the processes around recourse, I talked to a number of groups, including the CCRA, who I think have done some really good stuff, and some of their human resources people were in tears because of the problems the current regulations impose on them, the restrictions and the limitations. I think we're well rid of that, I really do.

» (1725)

Mr. George DaPont: I think that's a critical point. The points about culture change are well taken. Obviously, you can do culture change without necessarily changing legislation. But I think the key thing here is that in the existing legislation that governs this, there are a lot of prescriptive measures that don't allow you flexibility, don't allow you authority, and over 30 years of accumulated jurisprudence and interpretations it has become very rigid.

Your point is probably well taken. If this act isn't looked at again for another 30 years, I suspect another group of people may be making the same arguments. The key thing here is that culture change is not possible without changing the legislation and changing some of the provisions of the existing legislation. Otherwise, you run into barriers that force you to do things in certain ways.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Legislation becomes your secret, your security blanket.

Mr. George DaPont: I wouldn't call it a security blanket. It imposes a set way of doing a lot of things and doesn't leave you much flexibility to change how you do them, to adapt them to changing circumstances.

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

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I find this really interesting, the fact that you all speak so enthusiastically about the new legislation. I think that is encouraging.

You also mentioned, and what I think we need to move forward on.... I recognize we've heard a lot about what the problems are. I certainly hear the frustrations of a lot of the people we've heard from over these past few weeks.

Let's move forward and say we adopt the legislation with, I expect, a few amendments and some changes to kind of improve it. Then what? How do we move it forward? You talked about us having to walk the walk. If we're trying to make a significant change, the one thing is to get the legislation through. Then how do we ensure that it happens, from this committee?

We're going to review this in seven years. But in between day one and seven years from day one, how do we make sure this happens, that it goes forward and the shackles are removed from many of the people in the public service, so that they are encouraged to move forward and advance themselves?

Ms. Joanne Toews: I think there are a number of things that we are already starting to do. There is going to be a senior-level committee of deputies that will actually take this on as an issue they support. They will be supported by senior HR professionals and ADMs from other different areas, who will work together with the central agencies in terms of the plans around how we are going to make this work.

They have already started to reach out to organizations like the Human Resources Council, which we represent, to sort of ask us to be part of those processes. So there will be the processes to make sure that this is handled in such a way that all the parties are involved in what the next steps are, including the unions. Those things will be happening.

As well, there will be a huge amount of communication around this for employees, so they understand what is happening. There will be training programs for managers and HR professionals. They're looking at information systems to allow us to be able to do the sorts of advisory and demographic planning that most organizations do, so that we have the right kind of base to do the right sort of human resource planning. That's built into the plan as well, that we have those firm and solid systems to support us. So there will be a whole workplan around how this process unfolds after the legislation, hopefully, is passed.

Ms. Judy Sgro: How long is that going to take? If I could just get that question dealt with--

Ms. Joanne Toews: How long for that process--

Ms. Judy Sgro: How long is all this going to take to happen? Is it going to take three years or four years before--

Mr. Lawrence Strong: It will depend on how much political pressure you put on it, but it will take time. I would take a slightly different approach if I were sitting where you are. I would ask the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board, and the Public Service Commission to come with an integrated plan with key milestones, key actions, and then I would call them in every time you hit one of those milestones and say, “Okay, have you done it?”

» (1730)

Ms. Judy Sgro: Exactly! That makes sense, doesn't it?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: You know, I think to have some political awareness and buy into the issue is really important. I'm delighted that this has come forward, but it's not a partisan issue. This is something we should all be worrying about. So I would put their feet to the fire. And don't make it 300 pages, either. I like reports of one page, and you only require one page if you put the key things down with some dates. That's what I would do.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's hard to hide in one page.

Mr. Lawrence Strong: Yes. I used to live by that rule. We used to put it in the smallest print and I went to legal size. We extended the margins as well, but we still used to have to get it on one page.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Judy, do you have another question?

Ms. Judy Sgro: No, that's fine, thank you.

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

We're going to wrap up here soon, but before you leave I want you to specifically address the definition of “merit” as it is in the bill. I'll ask you first of all to comment on whether that is going to be okay, and will that do the trick as far as you're concerned?

Also, what about the missing part of that definition that I read, of selecting the best within any competition and requiring to have systems that inherently would produce a candidate of most merit within a context? We talk about meeting a certain standard bar, but what about the objective of trying to produce someone of most merit?

In summary, I want you to specifically comment on merit, as it is in the bill.

Mr. George DaPont: From the Human Resource Council's perspective, I think we're quite satisfied with the way merit is defined in the bill. We think the safeguards that are set out are adequate.

How it's going to work in practice is the one thing that is very difficult to assess right now, based only on the provisions of the bill, because the missing piece that we don't have yet is the policy framework around how you will operationalize that.

I don't think there's any expectation that it's going to be a complete free-for-all and that any manager will be able to do whatever they want in any way they want. That isn't the expectation.

There will be some standardized approaches and staffing techniques that come out of this that are going to be defined in whatever policy framework is being developed through the Public Service Commission. There will be additional requirements undoubtedly set out in the delegation agreements, so we're satisfied that the package of things, both the provisions in the bill in terms of abuse of authority, the definition of merit, and what we anticipate will ultimately be dealt with in delegation agreements and policy frameworks, will give a very effective, fair, and transparent way to operationalize this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Mr. Strong, do you have any addition to make?

Mr. Lawrence Strong: I think it's absolutely fine the way it's written, because I would want the managers to have the most flexibility.

You have all sorts of checks and balances, more than you probably need, which is beside the point. But the one that you haven't put in there, which I place a great deal of value on, concerns your actual employees. They will tell you if you're screwing up. They really will, because they know, and you just have to go and ask them. If they think there's something funny, they will tell you.

This is the sort of culture that you want, in which you'll get this sort of feedback. People will probably make some mistakes—hopefully not intentionally, but sometimes you just make a bad decision. Surely, if you've been involved in selecting people for anything, you do your due diligence and you make the best decision you can, but it sometimes doesn't work out. So what if it doesn't work out? Change it, and get on with life.

There's this massive preoccupation with the concept of excellence, which is out of tune with the situation you're going to find yourself in in the next 10 or 15 years, where you'll be lucky to get good people—unless you change dramatically. It's a tough environment.

So I'm very happy with the degree of flexibility you have built in there, and you have all of the safeguards there for defining the job requirements, etc.

» (1735)

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

Before we adjourn, I just want to remind you that we're going to be meeting tomorrow, Thursday, at nine o'clock for two sessions, and we will go all the way to one in the afternoon, in Room 371 of the West Block. We'll again be considering Bill C-25.

An hon. member: Will you be there?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Yes, I'll be there.

Thank you.

We are adjourned.