PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, June 2, 2003

¹

1530

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance))

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

¹

1535

¹

1540

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

¹

1545

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Maria Barrados

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

¹

1550

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

¹

1555

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

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

Ms. Sheila Fraser

º

1600

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

º

1605

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Maria Barrados

º

1610

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Shahid Minto (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

º

1615

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

º

1620

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

º

1625

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 033

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, everybody.

    Our order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), is consideration of the May 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

    Our witnesses are from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada; Ms. Maria Barrados, Assistant Auditor General; Mr. Shahid Minto, Assistant Auditor General; and Mr. Douglas Timmins, Assistant Auditor General.

    This is a review of the chapter the Auditor General tabled last week. I understand this meeting is going to wrap up at 4:30 and then we'll move in camera.

    So without further ado, Madam Fraser, over to you.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss my second status report, which was tabled last week, on May 27.

    As you mentioned, I am accompanied today by Assistant Auditors General Maria Barrados, Shahid Minto, and Doug Timmins.

    My reports tell Parliament how well the federal government is managing its resources and whether or not it can demonstrate that its programs are achieving the desired results. I'm often asked if the government corrects the problems that have been identified in our audits, how quickly, and how completely.

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    We designed the Status Report to answer these questions clearly, based on rigorous follow-up audits of the government's action to address issues raised in our previous audit. The Status Report allows us to answer some of our own questions as well. Does our work promote positive change? Does it make government better? Do we, in fact, make a difference for Canadians?

    This year, I am pleased to say that we can answer “yes” to all these questions. The results we saw in our follow-up audits are, in large measure, positive. Of the six areas covered in the 2003 Status Report, we are satisfied with the government's progress in four, given the complexity of some issues and the amount of time that has elapsed since our original audit. Let me review these four areas briefly.

[English]

    In chapter 2, on managing the risks of non-compliance for customs, we know overall Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has made satisfactory progress on improving the management of risks of non-compliance at borders in response to recommendations that we made in 2000 and 2001.

    The agency now has a system to collect advance passenger information from airlines in order to target high-risk air travellers, as well as an improved system for screening travellers at airports. But while the agency has taken these steps to make our borders more secure, it has yet to determine how effective they are. More activity doesn't necessarily mean better security.

[Translation]

    In Chapter 3, we audited the economic component of the Canadian Immigration Program, which applies mainly to skilled workers and business immigrants. In April 2000 we reported serious problems in Canada's ability to protect the integrity of the immigration program and make the most of the economic and social benefits of immigration.

    Our Status Report notes that Citizenship and Immigration Canada took our recommendations seriously, as did the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when it considered the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—the first major overhaul of immigration legislation in some 25 years. Most of the act's provisions came into effect in 2002.

    Overall, we are satisfied with the department's progress.

[English]

    Amended selection criteria for skilled workers and business immigrants and the creation of a new permanent resident card are two of several improvements. However, issues arose around medical surveillance of immigrants and refugee claimants, and we would be pleased to discuss these issues in more detail with the committee.

[Translation]

    Chapter 4 notes that, overall, we are satisfied with Correctional Service Canada's progress in the reintegration of male offenders into the community—a vital part of its mandate.

    If has increased parole officers' adherence to its standards for supervising offenders in the community, improved the quality of reports to the National Parole Board for parole decisions, made case management more timely, and shortened the time it takes to acquire critical documents on offenders.

    I encourage the service to continue this progress and address other outstanding issues we have identified in our report, such as the need for employment and rehabilitation programs for offenders, training of parole officers, and testing of tools used in the initial assessment of offenders.

[English]

    In chapter 5, we note that the Public Service Commission has redesigned its post-secondary recruitment program and substantially implemented most of the recommendations we made in our December 2000 report. Recruiting through the program is now faster and more flexible, and I commend the commission on how much they have accomplished in such a short time. But managers in federal government departments are not yet taking full advantage of the program, nor doing the human resources planning required to help ensure that the government has the qualified people it will need in the future.

    Now I would like to comment on the two disappointments in this report--issues that are important to good decision-making and the government's effectiveness.

[Translation]

    The first one deals with performance reporting.

    Parliament needs good information about performance in order to decide which programs to fund, which programs are effective and should be supported, and which programs are not effective and need to be improved or shelved.

    In the nine performance reports we looked at in Chapter 1, the departments failed to provide this kind of useful information. Despite some good practices, reports tend to focus on “good news” and omit or gloss over performance problems. There is scant evidence that departments use performance information to make decisions. And there is too little reporting on important horizontal issues that span the mandates of several government departments—security, for instance.

    In an environment where people are all too ready to point fingers when any failures or weaknesses come to light, balanced reporting is risky. Unfortunately, departments are not rewarded for telling the whole story, warts and all.

[English]

    The second disappointment is reform of job classification and evaluation. The government has known for years that the system used to classify and evaluate jobs in the federal public service is outdated and cumbersome and that it must be overhauled. The classification system is essential to managing the public service payroll.

    In the 40 years since the system was created, changes in technology have transformed the way government works. Skills that were once highly valued have become obsolete, and new skills have emerged.

    Chapter 6 notes that after 12 years of trying to reform the system, the Treasury Board Secretariat has abandoned its second attempt, and since the just-launched third attempt at classification reform is based on features that made the existing system slow and unwieldy, we are concerned about the significant challenges the Treasury Board Secretariat faces in its new approach. The government needs to succeed with this important reform in order to ensure that it is paying its employees appropriately for the skills they use at work. It needs to both attract and retain people with the qualifications necessary for a modern and effective public service. Ultimately, this has an impact on the quality of programs received by Canadians.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    There is no question that government faces enormous challenges in delivering large and complex programs and services. When we conduct our audits, we do find short coming—that is the nature of auditing—but we make every effort to be constructive in our criticisms and to suggest solutions to the problems we identified.

[English]

    We are satisfied with the progress we found in four of our six follow-up audits this year, and I would hope this status report reassures those who wonder whether anything is ever done to fix problems identified in our audits. Clearly, the answer is yes.

    That concludes our opening remarks, and we would be happy to answer members' questions.

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

    Now we'll go to questions.

    Ms. Meredith, for eight minutes, please.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Fraser and staff, for appearing before the committee.

    I'm going to deal with the two reports you have problems with. One is the performance reporting.

    How is it possible that departments are going to be honest and upfront and be critical of their performance if they may lose their funding to continue that project, whether or not they get a reprimand for not having performed to the level to which they're expected to perform? How is it possible that with self-reporting in departments you're ever going to get an honest evaluation?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think that's an excellent question. I'm not sure, quite frankly, that the issue is so much a lack of funding. To be very honest and blunt with this committee, I think it's more the political environment in which departments have to operate and the very public nature of everything they do.

    I think we do see cases where it does happen. I'll use the example of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. In their report, they do indicate areas where they have not made the progress they would have liked and where there are challenges to be met, and they go about explaining how they are going to do that.

    Unfortunately, there probably aren't as many of those examples as we would like, but I think it can be done. I would think the committees would certainly be one way of helping departments bring that kind of information forward.

    Ms. Val Meredith: So what I'm hearing from you is that the committees would have to assume the responsibility in holding the departments to a standard of performance reporting that they are at this time not putting forth.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think everything is a question of incentives and consequences. If a department can go into a committee with a performance report that indicates they have a challenge or an issue they're trying to deal with and this is how they're going about doing it, and if the committee is supportive of them in that discussion, it might encourage more departments to do that. If, on the other hand, that sort of more negative information is used to be very critical of the department, I don't think it's going to encourage very many to do it.

    Ms. Val Meredith: But I look at the nine departments you audited for this performance report section--defence, justice, the RCMP, the Solicitor General's department.... You're talking about departments that normally don't share information and don't have the interest in sharing information. So giving them the responsibility of self-reporting on their performance I think is wasting time.

    I'm going to move on to the other one, the $2 million the government spent over a 12-year period on job reclassification and then they dumped it. They literally just walked away from it. Now they're going into a third attempt, and I think the concern is that they don't really have any vision of how this attempt will be any different from attempts one and two. How do you find it? Are you satisfied with the potential third attempt that they're going to make in job reclassification?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: As we mentioned in the opening statement, we are concerned that there isn't a clear strategy and a clear objective in mind in this third attempt. The secretary was talking about a three-year rolling plan, but there's no overall objective of timelines--how long this reform will take, how much it will cost, and how they are actually going to do it.

¹  (1545)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: Is it the problem that 50% of the staff fall into what I'd heard referred to as a “red circle”, where their salaries are either way above the norm or way below the norm, so it's really hard to bring them into line? How are they ever going to come to grips with that?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: In part, that is a significant issue, that there isn't a line of pay any more that one would normally expect, because this has built up over many years, with different negotiations with different unions, and for 40 years we've been using this classification system.

    It is not going to be an easy thing to fix. I think we all recognize that. But it has to be done, because you can't pay people based on classifications that are 40 years old. You're not going to reflect adequately in that pay the kinds of skills you need for today's work. So how are you going to make sure people are properly paid? Also, how are you going to attract people and keep them there if they're not being adequately paid?

    Ms. Val Meredith: Do you feel this concern has been addressed or has been at least been raised with the people who are negotiating, such as the various unions that are representing the workforce for the government? Do you feel they understand what the problem is and that collectively they need to sit down and start addressing some of these inequities?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'm not aware of that. I could ask Dr. Barrados if she is aware of that kind of coordination within the Treasury Board Secretariat.

    Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): I could take two points from your question. First, have there been discussions with some of the unions? Yes, there have been some discussions with the unions.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Are they willing to work through this?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: In the early part of the process, on the universal classification standard, there was a lot of discussion with the unions and they were part of the development. When the decision was made not to proceed, there were very few discussions. There are now some more discussions about what is going forward.

    On the second part of your question, there are issues at the Treasury Board with how they had organized themselves. The pay people were quite separate from the classification people. Treasury Board has realized that, and they have restructured and reorganized to avoid that in bringing them closer together.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Do you feel it is going to resolve some of the issues if you have the classification people who are sorting out how much people are getting paid, all in the same department? Do you feel that it's going to resolve some of the discrepancies?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: They have to work together, because you can have negotiations that don't respect some of the things you are doing with classification, but classification is not bargained under the current regime of the government.

    Ms. Val Meredith: It is not bargained?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: It is not bargained.

    Ms. Val Meredith: So then it's a question of sorting out the classification and getting the unions to understand the value for work under that classification.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Is that where it broke down in the previous attempt?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: What broke down...? It's a question to ask Treasury Board where it all broke down, but one of the big factors was that they couldn't fit the current pay lines with the classification standard they had arrived at.

    The classification standard had been arrived at with input from unions. The current pay structure had also been arrived at with input from unions. One was an overall, universal attempt, and the second was a series of tables with a lot of history that builds up over time, and they couldn't reconcile those.

    Ms. Val Meredith: So how is the third attempt going to manage that reconciliation? Are they going to start from the beginning again?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: I think that's our question.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Gaudet, you have eight minutes.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Fraser, are the relationships among the department, or are they non existent?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Relationships?

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: Do the departments talk to each other? Do they exchange information or do they follow the airtight silo principle?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: They do talk to each other, Mr. Chairman. The fact remains, however, that in all of our audits, we have been quite critical concerning coordination and the management of horizontal dangers within government. Too much work is done in isolation, and generally speaking I would venture that coordination among departments must be improved.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: In Chapter 3, concerning Citizenship and Immigration Canada, economic details about the program are provided. Once again, the department does not know the percentage of immigrants who respect medical requirements and waiting periods. In this regard, what advice would you give that department?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, some people from the department have begun to respond to our concerns. They have provided names to public authorities. However, these were provincial authorities, and the information, such as whether people were turning up for examinations and whether medical surveillance was being done, was insufficient.

    They began to implement medical surveillance systems, but these are not yet everything they should be. As for obtaining information, they have not yet managed to achieve their objectives, but in my opinion, they are on the right track.

    There is also the problem of people claiming refugees status. Those who had inactive tuberculosis were not flagged to public authorities. The department indicated that it would also correct that situation.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: I will speak again later, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: We're going to wrapping up by 4:30, Mr. Gaudet. The next round may be a short one.

    Mr. Murphy, please, for eight minutes.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I have a few questions, Mrs. Fraser, on the reform of the classification and job evaluation. I read your report, and I think this is a big issue in government, the whole human resources question. Not only is classification and job evaluation a problem, but also the recruitment and you name it.

    Do you have any opinion as to whether or not we're really, in today's modern society, trying to do too much? You identified that the reason why this second attempt was aborted was because they couldn't come forward with a single system that fitted everyone. The federal civil service is a tremendously large operation. Not only is it large, it's diversified.

    You have CCRA who have a certain function, then you might have people over in Agriculture, and in no way, shape, or form are their skill sets or their duties or their responsibilities related. And of course you have the Treasury Board trying to classify everyone, I suppose. As we become more complex in society and in terms of the skill sets that are needed, would it ever work on a single platform?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think that's a really good question, Mr. Chair, which should probably be put to the secretariat.

    There are, of course, alternatives. There could be systems based on department by department rather than going across government. I realize that creates its own challenges when you have bargaining units set up across government, but I think it would be interesting to have that discussion with the secretariat.

    I do recognize it is very complex, very different, and often there are very specialized jobs that fall into the same category, but in fact even though the government has walked away from the universal classification system, there is still one group, the public administration group, that represents 45% of the employees. There is still an attempt to try to get one classification system for 45% of the employees in government. We are not sure how they're actually going to be able to do it if they weren't able to do it this time.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Certain departments have become agencies, such as CCRA, for example, or Parks Canada, and I'm not clear on the intricacies, but it seems that they are trying to individualize their operations a little bit. In your view, in your short tenure as our Auditor General, do you find those agencies are working more effectively from this point of view on the whole HR plight versus a line department?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, we haven't done an evaluation of that. We have said in public several times that it would be worth while to do an evaluation, because one of the major incentives for these departments to become agencies was to simplify the HR regime. I think it would be worth while to go back now after a few years experience to see, did it really work? I think CCRA would say that they have been given more flexibilities, but I'm not sure that the others have taken full advantage of them.

    I think it would certainly be worth while looking at those sorts of issues, and I would hope the committee would have a conversation with the secretariat on those kinds of issues.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Another point, Mrs. Fraser, again dealing with this whole human resources management in the public civil service issue, is that some of the initiatives I've seen in the past have failed because I couldn't see anybody responsible or accountable to see them through.

    In this case here with respect to the reform of the classification and job evaluation, is there someone who's clearly accountable and responsible? Because in the modernization I've asked this question to numerous people in government, very high up in government, and have never received a straight answer as to who was actually responsible. In this case, is there one person you can point your finger at and say “You are responsible”? And if there is, can you tell us who that person is?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes, it's very clearly the Treasury Board Secretariat. Within the Treasury Board Secretariat, of course the secretary would have overall responsibility for all these initiatives, but within the secretariat there is, I think he's an associate secretary, Mr. Lahey, who is responsible for HR issues and is responsible for this.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Was Mr. Lahey responsible for the previous initiative that was aborted in 2001?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Lahey has been in the secretariat now about a year maybe. I'm not sure how long he's acted, but he's been there for a very short period of time. I'm sure he didn't have responsibility for UCS, and I'm not sure if he was there at the time it was aborted or not. He came in after.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: The legislation that's presently before the House, the Public Service Modernization Act, will that have any bearing on this?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: On this?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: That's everything.

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

    Mr. Forseth, we're now on to round two, so that will be four minutes.

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

    Again following up on the job classification, in your status report of May 2003, on pages 22 and 23 there is a bit of a response from the government in the blueprint. What I get out of it is that some of the difficulties were pay equity and also the Canadian Human Rights Act. We heard some answer about how things broke down and they couldn't reconcile pay grids, because of their historical nature, with description grids. But based on the answer I got from Treasury Board, as outlined in here, are we likely to have the same issue again a year from now? It looks like there's no real plan of action to resolve this issue, and if we don't, obviously we're not going to be able to staff the public service with the brightest and the best and properly compete in the labour market.

    First of all, I could ask you if maybe you could comment on the answer that was supplied. And then it's almost like excuses: in the end, the government is saying they are trying very hard not to repeat the mistakes of the past. But saying they're going to try harder isn't quite specific enough. You keep getting the same bad results because you keep doing the same old things over and over again.

    So I think I've indicated what I'm looking for from you.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you.

    I think Mr. Forseth has raised one of the issues we had here, in that there should be a lesson learned from the last initiative in terms of what went wrong: how do you avoid it happening to you again, and has there been a really good study done of the different alternatives and then a plan forward? They talked about a group-by-group approach to classification reform on a three-year rolling target. We don't see enough specificity in that to understand what it actually means, and what is your objective at the end of it all. So we would like to see a much clearer plan.

    You mentioned pay equity. That is one of the issues. The universal classification system was seen as a solution to many of the pay equity issues. Now that it is not going forward, pay equity is still an issue and has to be addressed by government.

    We agree with them that it is a very complex issue, but we really think there needs to be more clarity in how you're going to get there, and what went wrong the last time and how are you going to avoid it this time.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: And part of the government's excuse was the Canadian Human Rights Act. Did you do any analysis there?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Would you like to respond to that, Maria?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: The response reflects a concern Treasury Board has that the Bilson committee is looking at making recommendations on possible changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would affect then the position going forward. The position we have taken in this report is that the current legislation is what is in place. The current decisions are what is in place and they have to be dealt with.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

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

[Translation]

    Mr. Gaudet, did you want to complete your question? You have six minutes.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Concerning the reintegration of male offenders into the community, you stated that there were not enough programs. According to you, is this due to the fact that certain programs are not well known, or is it that public servants are not familiar with programs that could be implemented?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No. Basically, Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with here is a lack of programs, especially programs that could be implemented in the community. Once offenders are on parole, it is important that they be involved in certain programs, among others employment programs that will help them to acquire the necessary skills to eventually obtain a job.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: Is this due to a lack of funds?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I presume that it is in part due to a lack of money. You would have to put the question to the Correctional Service. We have not assessed all of the causes of the problem. It also happens that some communities have trouble obtaining programs; in that case, alliances have to be made with community groups to improve that situation. The Correctional Service is not always able to offer these programs itself. It must make alliances with other groups.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: How is it that the training for parole officers needs improvement?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'll have to look at the chapter in question.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: It is in Chapter 4.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We had already noted that training was insufficient. What is new, however, is the fact that this time the problem was raised during interviews and discussions with the officers themselves. Indeed, they mentioned that there was not enough training. For our part, we had noted that the turnover rate among parole officers was quite high and that this also had an impact on the training aspect.

    We advised the Correctional Service that several indicators revealed a potential problem and that they would have to analyze the nature of that problem more in depth.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: Do you think that this is related to classification reform and the assessment of positions in the public service? Perhaps the problem really stems from that.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: It is certain that that can have an impact. I don't necessarily want to comment on this specific case. It could be that what is involved here are skill and training levels that have not been updated for some time.

    Mr. Roger Gaudet: I will speak again later.

    The Chair: You still have three minutes.

    Mr. Finlay, four minutes.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm glad we got that news that four out of six were okay. That's second-class in most.... We'd like it to be first. But it's a nice thing to know that we're trying to do things better.

    It seems to me, Auditor General, that in your brief to us maybe the key must be in what you talked about in regard to chapter 5, “the Public Service Commission has redesigned its Post-Secondary Recruitment program”, and so on. You say it's now faster and more flexible, and you commend the commission on how much they have accomplished in such a short time.

    I wonder whether part of their advantage is that if they're dealing with recruitment, they're not dealing with a huge core of people, many of whom have been around for a long time and who are knowledgeable in the system that is. So you take away one side of the equation. This is what we think we need in modern administration.

    I'm wondering if you can take those things that were learned there, or whether you have any suggestions of things that you saw that were better and apply them to the current system, which we've tried to reform now three times.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think, Mr. Chair, obviously it's a much narrower area than classification throughout the federal government. This is a clear example where the senior management of the commission made this a priority; they completely revamped the way they do recruitment. Rather than doing it once a year, they do it all year long. They're using electronic web-based tools. They're allowing students or graduates to be able to go in and update records on a constant basis. It's made it a much better system. It took, I'm sure, a fair bit of effort and resources to do that, but there is a clear commitment to do it and they achieved that. I think they deserve credit for that.

    On the other hand, it's rather unfortunate that departments aren't using it more than they are. Hopefully, as they learn of its flexibility and the ease of use they will begin to use it more. We tied that back as well to the problem that a lot of hiring still is short term. There isn't enough planning, so departments are reluctant to bring in people on a full-time basis.

    I think you're right. It is a good example of things that can be done and perhaps would be an interesting case study of what the ingredients to success were here.

    Mr. John Finlay: Exactly.

    Have I any more time, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: You have one more minute, Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay: You said good information about performance is needed in order to decide which programs to fund, and so on. Perhaps that too is an area that, if we could correct it, might show some direction for the future to improve the whole system, because if we're not going to be honest about whether it worked or didn't work, we're in real trouble.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: That's right, and one of the key issues in performance reporting is learning from what went wrong, so that you don't repeat those mistakes. But if you're never able to actually discuss challenges and mistakes or difficulties you've encountered, how do you improve? I think it really is, in large part, a cultural issue too.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

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

    Ms. Meredith, please, for four minutes.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Ms. Fraser, that brings up a new issue. Did you look at the percentage of new blood coming into the civil service through this new measure, or is it still a case that the old tried-and-true keep moving up and up and the new people get to apply but don't really get hired? Did you evaluate how much new blood is coming into the civil service?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'll let Dr. Barrados answer that one. I think she has information.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes, we have numbers in the report that show the number of recruits through this program, and they're all new blood, because the purpose of this program is to bring people into the public service who've completed their post-secondary training.

    We are showing the absolute numbers in exhibit 5.3, and we also show where these jobs are and the proportion. So what we've seen happen is a significant increase from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002, but in actual fact, as a proportion of the new hires, it was the same. That's why we don't make too much of a fuss about the increase in the total number, because relatively, it's the same proportion.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: Okay.

    What I really want to ask is on the citizenship and immigration chapter, chapter 3. We've run into this before, where the information we get from the departments is a little bit misleading, where it doesn't properly reflect reality. I noticed that you raised this issue in this report, that particularly when it came to the independent immigrants and business or economic immigrants, the numbers reflected the spouses and children, the dependants as well as those who were coming in.

    Did you get any assurance from the department that they're going to change that kind of reporting and that they're going to be a little bit more honest and upfront with that?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: As has been mentioned, the report indicates the total number of people who were admitted under that program, which includes, if you will, the skilled worker and dependants.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Right.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: The department has indicated that they will correct that. They will present more information in the performance report.

    I believe that information is already available in other reports on their website, but it's not specifically in that performance report. So they have indicated that they will fix that.

    Ms. Val Meredith: You also seem to have problems with the quality assurance reporting--exhibit 3.3. I guess it's not reporting, but the whole process of measuring the quality of the delivery of the service.

    I think the comment I've heard is that there is a lot of planning, thinking, and proposals, but there hasn't been any improvement in the last two years, and certainly there are no new instruments or any new directions being given. Is that a fair...? Although they're talking about it, it's not a priority with them and they're really not doing a whole lot.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: You're right that up until now--and we note this in the report--they are developing this framework, but it's still not there. There needs to be much more specific guidance to offices abroad and making sure there is consistency throughout the system.

    Perhaps Mr. Minto would like to elaborate a little bit.

    Mr. Shahid Minto (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Certainly, as we mentioned in paragraph 3.60, there has been a lot of thinking and a lot of activity around the subject, but at the time of our audit, no new instructions had been sent out to the offices abroad as to what to do and how to ensure quality and everything.

    Once you send the instructions, it takes a while to implement them, so we were at the stage where the thinking was still going on.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minto and Ms. Meredith.

    Monsieur Gaudet. No?

    Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Fraser, I have a couple of questions on the recruitment program. Again I just want to follow up on a couple of comments.

    From my reading of the numbers, we still have a serious problem. In the area I come from, working for the public service is a very desirable occupation. Kids coming out of school still have a problem getting access into the system, and I can see why they have a problem when I look at the numbers.

    You say there has been an increase, but back two years ago there were 125 university students recruited outside the capital region, and it has increased now to 263. We're probably dealing with about 30 universities across Canada, outside Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. We're basically talking figures so insignificant that they're hardly worth reporting. You do have 757 appointments from the capital region, and you or Ms. Barrados made the point already that the percentage of indeterminate hiring two years ago was 4%, it went to 6%, and now it's back to 5%, which really is almost insignificant in and of itself.

    As far as I can see, as a person representing one of the regions, they really haven't scratched the surface. This is where they should be recruiting. This is where the new hires should be coming from. I know you made the point that there is a bit of a ramp-up, but I still see a very serious problem. Do you agree with me?

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: One of our concerns is that even though the program itself has become more flexible and better, the departments aren't using it enough. They have to increase the number of people they hire through this. The only way they can do this is if they do better planning and start doing more indeterminate hiring, longer-term hiring. There is still too much based on the short term.

    Dr. Barrados would perhaps like to comment.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Perhaps I could add a clarification on the charts and the numbers.

    The point we're making is that the program is being used to make appointments in the regions in a very small proportion, and in the national capital area in a much larger proportion. That's not to say the draw isn't from the regions. It shouldn't be taken to infer that the people who were appointed in the national capital all came from the national capital.

    In fact, this program is one that meets all the standards in terms of being open, getting a diverse group of people in, meeting all the expectations for appointing diverse populations. So their draw is national. The criticism is that the regional parts of the federal public service aren't using this program to make their appointments.

    I'm sure the Public Service Commission could give some insight as to where all these people are from, but when we looked at that, it met all those standards of being totally open to everyone in the country.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I agree with you that when you look at your 5% figure, it's very insignificant.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: It's where the appointments are, but it's not necessarily where the people came from.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: What you're saying is in that figure of 757 appointments, those people could have come from other regions outside the capital region. You don't know for sure.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes, and we're satisfied that--

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: I'm not sure what the numbers actually were. It's a fair question to ask, and we don't have that here. But we're satisfied that this program ran to provide equal opportunity across the country.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: What you're saying is the exclusion that's there now, which excludes these people from applying, doesn't apply in the university recruiting program. That's what you're saying.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: It's sort of specifying or restricting some. Yes, that's right.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Thank you.

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

    Mr. Forseth, please, for four minutes.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    Concerning a job application being open across the country, I think the minister agrees with the many calls from the opposition to fix the barriers that are there, especially in advertisements that say only someone in the capital region need apply, and it even spells out certain postal codes.

    The minister agrees with that, but of course the Public Service Commission outlines the practical problem of having an application form for a paralegal at an entry level and having a thousand applications arrive in the office in seven days. They've never had any physical capability of being able to handle that. The Public Service Commission said that they were running a couple of pilot projects to fix it and they're going to report back to Parliament—or to the minister—in June.

    I certainly hope you look at that issue, because it just seems to fly in the face of everything we think in this country is fair and equitable.

    That directly relates to the other issue I want to talk about. It says on page 17 of your report that the government is answering:

Departmental performance reports reflect the responsibility of each minister and his or her department to account to Parliament for their performance against planned outcomes.

    It's my opinion that those reports are still somewhat feel-good messages. I think maybe even the Treasury Board minister and the Minister of Finance agree with that, because they said in the budget that they are going to go over the heads of ministers and to reallocate up to $1 billion. They were going to make that announcement by May.

    Well, I've asked a couple of questions of the Treasury Board minister, and they said they were going to answer and they had their plans. Then at the last minute, because of expenditures for mad cow disease and SARS and some other things, they've had to readjust their last-minute reallocation of funds. But you think reallocation is going to happen because of evaluating what works and what doesn't work. I hope you really look at that whole process of setting proper budgets in the first place, based on reports, whether they're sincere or not, and then government admitting that it has to fix up its mistakes by this billion-dollar reallocation just months later, which directly flies into the original process of evaluation and reports to Parliament.

    Maybe you could comment on that. Then, of course, I made a statement on the other issue that's an ongoing concern. I don't think the Public Service Commission to this point has satisfactorily answered Parliament's call for openness and fairness for applications across the country.

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you.

    On the recruitment, we made a comment on that in our audit last year, I believe it was. It's obviously a policy decision of the government. We raised two issues in relation to that. One is of course the cost of doing this. There has to be a good evaluation of costs. The other issue I think it also raises is the whole regionalization of.... I mean, if you were going to open up everything, it might call into question why you would put certain activities in certain regions. I presume you're saying if you open it up across the board, then somebody from Ottawa could apply for a job in Charlottetown, and the costs related to that and all the rest of it.

    We raised two issues. There was a policy decision made after that to open it up. I personally don't know where they're at in that, but I'm sure at some point in time we will follow it up.

    As to the reallocation process, we're aware of it. Again, that is a policy decision of government to try, when the budget announcement was made, to do this exercise. We have been briefed on it. We have raised the question as to how this fits with the normal process in the other five-year review to be carried out on an ongoing basis, and we're still talking with Treasury Board Secretariat about how that's actually going to be carried out.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: How are we going to make these performance reports meangingful so that it does the reallocation?

    The Chair: A brief response to that final question.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Good question. I think it would be a good one for the Treasury Board Secretariat.

    The Chair: Okay.

    I'm incensed that the Public Service Commission is still hiring on a regional basis, perhaps not in post-secondary recruitment, but as Mr. Murphy pointed out, there seems to be a definite bias in favour of the capital region. We know they still have that hiring by postal code. If you have the wrong address, you just don't qualify. I find that an affront under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country that we would discriminate against Canadians based on where they live. I can't understand why the Public Service Commission continues to go down that road. It's just an affront.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, we can't really comment on it. The information we're given here is where the jobs were. We don't have the information behind it to know whether there were competitions open across the country or not.

    The Chair: Any thought that they can't handle.... I told the president of the Public Service Commission that they can quite easily advertise on the Internet. It doesn't cost a dime to put it on the Internet. You don't have to pay for somebody to fly across the country for an interview; they have to come at their own expense. If they want a job in Charlottetown and they live in Vancouver, then they can pay their own way for the interview. You're not going to be flooded with thousands of applications. Yet it just seems beyond the mindset of these people to even think about it.

    I also want to talk about the reform of the classification of the federal public service. It seems to me that while the Treasury Board tried to comply with the Human Rights Commission, they have lost all touch with the reality. It's impossible to determine and develop a system for 175,000 or 195,000 people with totally diverse skills, living in different parts of the country, where the cost of living is high and the cost of living is low, and northern allowances and whatever the score may be. For the tribunal to think that is possible under one gigantic matrix is just beyond the reality. I can't imagine that they'd impose something like this. It's cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars.

    How is the Treasury Board going to be able to resolve this issue? Third try, and no indication that they have success.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think that's an excellent question, Mr. Chair, for the secretariat.

    I would just go back, though, to the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission wants to ensure that the classifications are gender-neutral. The government said that UCS was the solution to it, but the Human Rights Commission did not impose UCS on government. They wanted to make sure that the issues from pay equity were addressed. Government said that UCS would solve that; it would be a part of the solution. With UCS not being there, the issue is it raises its head again. So it's not clear how government is going to deal with it.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: As I said, I think the tribunal has to get their head out of the sand and say we live in the real world, not in their concept of some vision where everything is a perfect world. It just isn't that way.

    One final thing on the performance reports. I'm a great believer in accountability, as you know. With regard to your question as to what can be done, perhaps when you're writing your reports on issues, which you table every so often, you could include in the report what the department said about that particular issue in the previous report or two on the performance reports so we can compare it. This is how you found it—that's what they said. So when they come here to a public accounts committee, we can ask, why did you gloss over these problems when the Auditor General can find them so readily? What do you think?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I think that's a really good idea, because we actually have done it. If you look at the chapter on UCS, you will see in there extracts from all of the performance reports. There have also been some other examples there where we have done the same thing.

    The Chair: You are ahead of us. Congratulations.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we do have to suspend this meeting. I understand there is only one vote. This will wrap up the public part of the meeting. We hope to have quorum when we return, and if so, we can pass some motions and table some reports and get some other business done.

    The meeting is suspended until after the vote.