[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, June 19, 1996
.1542 
[English]
The Chair: On commence.
We have with us today Ruth Hubbard, the president of the Public Service Commission;Ginette Stewart, commissioner; Amelita Armit, executive director of the corporate management branch and secretary general; and Jean-François Martin, executive director of the staffing programs branch.
I bid you welcome. The Public Service Commission is the government's human resources and training arm. We're delighted that you're with us here today to tell us how you're going to be deftly managing the largest personnel downsizing in the country's history.
Please begin.
Ms Ruth Hubbard (President, Public Service Commission): Thank you, Madam chair and hon. members.
In addition to the witnesses who are with me at the table, there are a number of other people here from the Public Service Commission in case their expertise is required: Judith Moses, the executive director of the training branch; Gilles Depratto, the director of appeals; and Lyse Ricard, who's our director general of finance and administration.
[Translation]
The Public Service Commission is the parliamentary agency responsible for ensuring that the people of Canada are served by a highly competent and representative public service. As such, the Commission is accountable to Parliament for the administration of the Public Service Employment Act. Our primary activities comprise staffing and recruitment, recourse and review, training and development, and research and analysis. We have offices across the country.
I want to say on behalf of my fellow Commissioners how pleased we are to be here to report on the activities of the Public Service Commission.
[English]
At our last appearance before this committee in April and May of last year, we indicated some of the things the commission proposed to do to help bring about the renewal of the public service. I am pleased to report that we've been acting on our commitments and making positive progress on a number of fronts. Indeed, over the past year we have gained a greater appreciation of the twin challenge of preparing the public service of the future through significant change while preserving the essence of a professional public service.
A professional non-partisan public service is one of the most important underpinnings of any parliamentary democracy. In Canada we are fortunate to have a public service that is highly respected around the world. It's important to remember, however, that our public service is the product of generations of men and women who, over decades, have dedicated themselves to serving the public good and carefully nurturing the values Canadians have come to expect.
.1545
As the parliamentary agency which safeguards merit, we have a duty to ensure that Canadians continue to be served by a competent, professional, representative, and politically neutral public service. We believe we also have a responsibility to remind Canadians of the reasons for having an institutionalized, professional bureaucracy and the ways in which a public service is a cornerstone of our Westminster-based system of government.
In so doing, we wish to contribute to the broader discussion and debate about the ways of safeguarding core democratic, ethical, and professional public sector values as government roles continue to evolve and the search continues for more flexible ways to deliver public goods and services.
[Translation]
This is not a fancy way of saying that we support the status quo. Rather, it is a profound belief in the need to re-focus, re-commit and strengthen the foundation of the professional public service in light of the realities and needs of today and tomorrow, including a willingness on the part of the Public Service Commission to examine new ways of carrying out its responsibilities.
The push for the public service of the future to be smaller, flatter, less costly and more responsive to the needs of Canadians continues. New arrangements, including partnerships with other levels of government and other sectors of the economy, are currently being put into place to deliver services.
[English]
In its recent progress report entitled ``Getting Government Right'', the Government of Canada recognized that it faced not only a financial challenge but a challenge of public faith. The practices, principles, and institutions used by government to meet the needs of Canadians were found wanting. Canadians no longer believed that their interests as citizens, clients, and taxpayers were sufficiently and effectively reflected in the actions of their governments.
The challenge for the public service is to professionally and loyally support government objectives, to competently carry out its own changing responsibilities, to cope with significant change and downsizing, and at the same time to work hard to rebuild pride in the institution of the professional public service.
[Translation]
Downsizing and restructuring of the public service, while continuing to deliver services, will remain major challenges for public service managers and staff. The changes under way have had and will continue to have an impact on citizens and public servants - those who rely on and use government services and those who provide them. We, at the Commission, will do our utmost to support this repositioning.
The public service does not exist for its own sake, but to loyally serve the government of the day - both in terms of competently carrying out its decisions consistent with the laws of the land, and in offering professional, non-partisan advice on policy (speaking truth unto power).
But we are keenly aware of the human side of the public service and of the challenges it faces. The public service is not just a collection of rules, processes and hierarchies which enable it to do what it should. It is a human system - a system which involves people and we need to remember this, especially in times of turbulent change.
[English]
I'd like to turn now to our outlook document on priorities and expenditures and our part III of the estimates. Let me note that the main challenges for the Public Service Commission in the short and medium term are transition mechanisms and support, rejuvenation and renewal of the public service, monitoring the health of the public service, and adaptation and innovation within the Public Service Commission.
The commission will continue to focus its efforts in helping displaced public servants make career adjustments, inside as well as outside the public service. We will work to help employees adapt to the new organizational demands and operational developments that result from the restructuring process.
.1550
As well, the commission is extremely conscious of the need to rejuvenate an aging public service and to replenish its talent pools to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. By the year 2005, 70% of the current executive category, 45% of the executive feeder group and 35% of the professional and scientific category will be in a position to retire.
By building on its current strengths and achievements, by maintaining its high quality and reputation, the public service of Canada will continue to attract other high-calibre people possessing the vigour and diversity of this great country, the skills required by the workplace of the future, the inclination to enter public service and the capacity to flourish in a dynamic environment.
A detailed explanation of our activities is to be found in the documents we forwarded in advance to members of the committee in preparation for our appearance.
As shown in part III of the main estimates, the commission is seeking an annual appropriation of $113.3 million for 1996-97, which represents a reduction of $9.2 million from the main estimates of 1995-96. Percentagewise, the $113 million appropriation breaks down as follows: 47% to staffing programs; 23% to training programs; 17% to administration; 5% to executive programs; 4% to appeals and investigations; and 4% to audit and review.
[Translation]
As was evident from our appearances before this Committee last year, the Commission is in the midst of significant change itself. Our situation has altered somewhat since that time, as the pace and scope of public service reform broadens and deepens.
For example, the number of public servants under the Public Service Employment Act will shrink significantly with the implementation of Program Review decisions. Other major policy changes and the introduction of Alternative Service Delivery mechanisms will have an impact as well.
This reduction affects our staffing activities directly. In addition, our Training Programs Branch has experienced a substantial drop in the demand for professional development courses on top of a longer-term decline in demand for language training.
[English]
Since the preparation of the part III document, the commission has requested most-affected department status to provide an additional tool to assist with its own restructuring and downsizing. This means commission employees affected by downsizing would be entitled to the early departure incentive.
Notwithstanding our own restructuring, we are as committed as ever to carrying out our responsibilities efficiently and effectively on a number of fronts - for example, supporting public servants through the current transition process; targeting our recruitment and development programs to ensure that the public service has the necessary talent pool for the future; and conducting research into, and analysis of, the skills that will be required. In addition, we are examining an array of human resource approaches for the future in line with the requirements of a dynamic, adaptable and responsive workforce.
The professional public service must continue to operate from a strong foundation, a foundation that acknowledges that public service is a special calling, embodying an idealism and optimism that will shape behaviour consistent with core democratic, ethical and professional values.
[Translation]
We want to assure you that the Public Service Commission will continue to serve Parliament; that it will play its part to the best of its ability to safeguard the essence of the public service; and that it will work constructively with other key players to support public service renewal. Thank you.
We would now be pleased to take your questions and comments.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll begin our first round of questioning with Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Thank you very much.
Just to get a bit of understanding here, in part III of the Public Service Commission estimates, under ``Expenditure Plan'' on page 52, I'm interested in figure 34, the training programs.
What is the source of revenue for those training programs? Is that internal money? In other words, is it money coming from other government departments or is it coming from outside funds?
.1555
Ms Hubbard: It's a combination of both. It's a revolving fund, in part so that our services provided to federal government departments are costed and recovered from them and in part because we provide services to other governments, in some cases to governments outside the country, to provincial governments. The revolving fund allows us to charge for those, to receive those revenues and credit them to the revolving fund.
Mr. Abbott: Now, $15 million is a fair piece of change. Do you have any idea what the breakdown would be - not in great detail, but just in general terms?
Ms Amelita Armit (Executive Director, Corporate Management Branch, and Secretary General, Public Service Commission of Canada): In terms of the $15 million, I would point out that only 12.5% of that is for courses and fees. I think about 80% to 85% would be internal. Maybe 10% to 15% of that would be charges to others who might to our services. The subsidy part is from our own appropriation.
Mr. Abbott: Under ``Expenses: Professional and special services'', I notice that number has gone back up. Is there a reason for that?
Ms Armit: These are our estimates for this year. I think it's more in relation to special development design courses, to new courses that may be anticipated. But that's just an estimate.
Mr. Abbott: Could you give me just a broad understanding of what would be contained in these programs, who would do them and for what purpose?
Ms Hubbard: Let me explain that the two central corporate training institutions in the federal government are the Canadian Centre for Management Development and Training and Development Canada...talking about the revolving fund.
The general breakdown is that the Canadian Centre for Management Development is an organization created to focus on executive learning. Training and Development Canada exists to provide training required by departments that is of normally a centralized nature, below the executive level. So executives don't get training from Training and Development Canada.
Over the past several years it would have been common understandings: the common financial system, the common human resource management system, the common elements of a front-line supervision course. In that sense, Training and Development Canada acts as a common service provider. It has been in existence for many years. The feeling was that providing that centrally was the most cost-effective way to meet the need.
Of course, the climate for training generally has changed. The requirements are changing as government continues to evolve. One of the reasons Training and Development Canada is a place where we're taking a hard look is precisely because some very important questions can be raised, partly because the private sector capacity to provide some of this training has increased significantly in recent years and partly because large operating departments - for example, one I'm familiar with, Revenue Canada - have their own training institutions, which they created many years ago to provide specialized technical training.
They are now finding, as I think private sector companies are, that they can, as a marginal add-on, provide other, more effective, kinds of training, because it's rooted very much in their business.
So the market for Training and Development Canada's services is changing profoundly. The nature of what it is we should be providing is changing profoundly. That is, roughly speaking, where the situation has been as we look ahead to the future.
Mr. Abbott: One of the areas that's rather interesting is that your vote happens to come under Canadian Heritage. I'm familiar with Canadian Heritage, as the critic for my party. In particular, I'm thinking of parks and the downsizing proposed in Parks Canada.
When that process is ongoing, it seems to me there is going to be, without a doubt, an awful lot of conflict, a lot of abrasion. How do you think your department is going to be able to assist in that kind of contracting out and fairly massive downsizing?
.1600
Ms Hubbard: With Parks Canada and the other two agencies being examined, I think the issue the government is still considering is the exact nature of the environment in which they ought to work to help them accomplish the task.
For example, there are questions the government would have to consider in developing its approach to Parks Canada. Ought the people who work in the parks agency to be part of the core public service as we know it? In that case they would come under the aegis of our organization. Or is the kind of protection provided by the independent parliamentary agency less necessary because of the nature of their work, and could it be provided in a different way?
We're working with all of those agencies to help them become clear on what they think they need in terms of flexibilities, and then to help them design what those flexibilities might be - whether it leads the government to say these entities should be out from under the Public Service Employment Act or whether it leads the government to decide they should stay. We are working very closely with them.
There are some fairly important questions the government needs to think its way through in terms of financing flexibility, in terms of whether, for example, they should have the freedom to be their own employer. Part of that is the kind of freedom they'll have to decide if they want with respect to us.
Mr. Abbott: I have one final question and I'm asking it with no sense of wanting to be abrasive or confrontational. I'm just trying to understand the public service and the delivery of services versus, say, a small to medium-sized operation.
I'm thinking of a coal mine that has 1,000 people working for it. Say they had a 700-person union force, and it would be better if the functions of 400 of the 700 people went to an outside contracted service. Then you have the battle at contract time between the union, trying to save its jobs for its people... It becomes a management-union or a management-worker kind of confrontation. I understand that confrontation.
We probably have the same kind of thing coming up with something like Parks Canada. I'm wondering if your department and your function will be a help or a hindrance in that process.
Ms Hubbard: I think I understand the question better. Our legal responsibility doesn't extend to work, even in the public service, that is done through contract. The decision on how to get the work done is a decision taken in the department.
If the hypothesis is that one of these agencies might be thinking of contracting out significant portions of its activities, that may well be a source of friction between the component of the union that represents those workers and the management of that organization. Technically we don't have a role. We are neither a help nor a hindrance.
Mr. Abbott: So the workers wouldn't be able to turn to you and and embroil you in this confrontation.
Ms Hubbard: No. We do care about these things, but we care about them only in the sense that if all of the work in the public service were contracted out, we would still technically exist. But we wouldn't have any public servants to worry about.
Mr. Abbott: I understand.
Ms Hubbard: We can't say we don't care at all, but the policy on what should or shouldn't be contracted out is something the employer has, not us.
The Chair: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Part of your mandate, as I understand it, is what I might call the preservation of the integrity of the public service. It's important that Canadians feel that the public service is doing a good job and have confidence in it.
.1605
I'd like to ask some questions relative to the make-up of the public service. I guess I'm one politician who likes to think that our public service ought to reflect, not precisely but roughly, the make-up of the country as a whole. So I'd like to know from you, if it's possible, what percentage of the public service is made up of men or women, visible minorities, the disabled, aboriginals, etc. I would even include age. Is our public service getting older? Is it getting younger?
Another question I have in this area is whether the downsizing of government is having an unbalanced effect on the composition of the public service. In other words, are older people getting hit harder than younger people, or the reverse? Would women be hit harder than men? Will aboriginals be hit harder, etc.? Can you just answer some of those questions?
Ms Hubbard: I'll certainly do my best. I have some percentages for the indeterminate population of the public service. The public service is mostly made up of permanent public servants, 181,000 out of 212,000. So the percentages I'm giving you are for the ones who are permanent public servants.
Mr. Harvard: When you give me the percentages, Ms Hubbard, do you also have the percentages of the population so that I can compare apples with apples?
Ms Hubbard: You need the market availability?
Mr. Harvard: No. I mean if aboriginals make up 2% of the public service, what percentage of the general population is made up of aboriginals? In other words, you have to give me information so I can compare.
Ms Hubbard: I must say I don't have that data here, although we'd be glad to provide it to you. We tend normally to look at two numbers, the percentage in the population and then the percentage that's available for certain kinds of work. I actually don't have that data either, but that would be easy to provide. That tells us what percentage we ought to be able to find and then it tells us what percentage we have of that. We'd be glad to give you that information.
The information I do have is that of the indeterminate population, a little over 46% are women, 2.2% are aboriginal people, 3.2% are disabled people, 4.4% are visible minorities, and 29.3% are francophone. I'll come to age in a moment.
You also asked if the situation was getting better or worse with downsizing. If you take the surplus population, that is the people whose jobs have disappeared and who are declared surplus, and if you look at the same categories and percentages, you discover that the percentage of the surplus population that was women is just over 49%. This compares to about 46% in the base population I just gave you. About 2.7% are aboriginal people, 5.7% are disabled, 5.6% are visible minorities, and about 25.2% are francophones.
I have to caution you that the surplus numbers are not large numbers. The percentages are very small, so the numbers we're talking about are small. A small variation in the percentage isn't indicative of anything. But roughly speaking, it's our view that the downsizing that has taken place so far has not been particularly tougher on one target group than another, as far as we can tell.
The possible exception is disabled people. Although we haven't done our homework to know this, we're told that population was a little bit older to start with and that they might have been disproportionately eligible for the early retirement incentive.
In terms of the age of the public service, I have a couple of general indicators. There are lots of different ways of coming at this issue. We'd be glad to give you more information. For example, in 1986 15% of the federal workforce had 20 years of service or more. In 1994-95 it was 27%, which would suggest that there's been a significant increase in the percentage of people who have stayed longer, which is one way of -
Mr. Harvard: You have more veterans, as it were, staying around.
.1610
Ms Hubbard: The other statistic I have, although I don't have on hand a comparison from earlier, is that 30% of the public service today is in the 45 to 50 age range. I would guess, and we can certainly get the data for you, that 10 or 20 years ago that would have been a much smaller number.
With respect to whether the downsizing is disproportionately touching people of a certain age, I would guess the answer would have to be yes, simply because the early retirement incentive is available to people who have a certain combination of age and years of service. It's not available to younger people or people with less service. I don't have the data, but that would be my guess. We'd be glad to send more information on this if you would find it helpful.
Mr. Harvard: Do you have any information with respect to your standing with the Canadian public? Do you know whether the public service enjoys the public's confidence more, the same as, or less than say ten, twenty, or thirty years ago?
Ms Hubbard: A number of different measures exist. Like everything else, it depends a bit on the question that's asked. What I can tell you is that we in the Public Service Commission asked for some questions to be put to citizens about the characteristics of the professional public service. We asked them to what extent they thought the professional public service should be competent, should be non-partisan, and should be representative of Canadian society. At that time, which was the last time we asked that question, nine out of ten said that they expected it to be competent; nine out of ten said they saw it as competent, eight out of ten said they thought it ought to be non-partisan, and a little over 6.5% said they thought it was; and seven out of ten said they thought it ought to be representative of Canadian society and very close to that same percentage said they thought it was. So that's one of the indicators.
Other data have certainly been in the media around how public servants feel, in terms of whether or not they provide good service and whether or not Canadians feel they're getting good service, which was another way of getting at it. So there are many ways of asking that kind of question.
Mr. Harvard: I want to raise just one other area with you, and it has to do with your work on redefining government or defining the core activity of government versus the non-core activity of government.
Is this kind of work or research being done right across the government, in every department? I know it's being done in Public Works.
The other thing is of concern to me, and I'm wondering whether it's of concern to you. There are those of us who believe there is a positive role for government, and the concern I have is that as we redefine government on the basis of core activity versus non-core activity, are we going to be able to maintain a critical mass of talent who not only believes in providing public service to all Canadians but who can actually do the job? I sometimes worry that we are so fast going down the road towards out-sourcing and contracting out, we might wind up one morning discovering that we've perhaps permanently damaged the core activity of government.
Ms Hubbard: The first question was whether it is happening across government that departments and ministers are asking themselves how best can these services be delivered. I think the answer to that question is definitely yes. The program review questions started everybody down that road and the discussion is continuing.
To relate it to your second question, I'm not sure that one should construe that the answer to a question about what the role of government should be as the country continues to evolve is necessarily going to be there's no role left for government. The sense I have is that the questions being asked around the world and at other levels of government in Canada, as well as at the federal level, are what is it that ought to be done at the core and what is it that is public sector, where the outcome is clearly public good but the environment in which one may want the activity to be carried out might be a slightly different one, one that would have a sharper focus on efficiency and a sharper focus on service to citizens than is appropriate for the core or the heart of government?
.1615
I spoke in my opening remarks about speaking truth unto power. One of the essential cornerstones of our system is an institutionalized professional bureaucracy, which must speak truth unto power. It is required. It is part of the way our system works. In return for ministers and governments constraining their freedom to appoint whom they want, when they turn to the professional bureaucracy they expect to get good, professional advice, and courageously spoken advice.
So the questions would be seem to be what kinds of activities is that kind of protection appropriate for? Is the kind of protection that has to be provided the kind of protection needed for public sector activities, public good activities, where in fact there's more emphasis on delivering services? In addition, there are questions on whether there are activities that don't belong in the public sector any more.
Your question was whether we might wake up one day and discover we've got nothing left of a critical mass of talent. I think that is something that everybody in Canada needs to be mindful about, but if you are asking why would talented people join, I would say that there are many reasons why talented people would join. I think the challenges of being a public servant are as great as they've ever been. It's as potentially satisfying as it's ever been.
I think from the commission's point of view we're basically optimistic. We think our responsibility, amongst other things, is to echo those kinds of concerns to make sure that Parliament and citizens think carefully about what they need for the future of the country. I don't know whether I've answered your question or not.
The Chair: Actually I have a question that stems from the question posed earlier byMr. Harvard and flows also from something you stated earlier. The commission is extremely conscious of the need to rejuvenate an aging public service and to replenish its talent pools to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. My question is the flip side of the coin.
One of the elements that makes the private sector so robust is its continual exchange of talent through turnover. Senior managers or directors rarely stay at a company more than three to five years. Don't you think maintaining a policy of having people there for twenty or thirty years has the potential to isolate government from the flow of talent and might make government more resistant to change?
Ms Hubbard: I certainly think that's a hazard of a system that is designed to be a closed system. I think one has to go back and ask why it was designed to be closed in the first place. My own view is that the public service is a special calling. Not everybody would want to serve the public either in an elected capacity... For a public sector to be effective, for a government system to work, in my view the groups that make up the public sector, including both elected and unelected officials...it seems to me as a society we need to protect and nurture and attract and support those people who have that as a calling. Without a critical mass of people who have that calling, I think we would be in danger of having the fabric of our system shredded.
.1620
Having said that, I don't think that necessarily means it should be a 100% closed system. As you said, there's a real risk if it is completely impermeable and if it is too focused on the abstract and on theory. There's a real danger of it becoming quite isolated from reality.
I think the issue is what the right balance is. My own view is that those public sector values - democratic values, loyally serving the government of the day, speaking truth unto power, ethical values such as integrity, which we expect in our public service - would be virtually impossible to preserve without a certain critical mass and some collection of ways that involve some learning and incentive systems. I don't mean necessarily financial. I think it has to be balanced, especially in today's world, with the fact that the way work is being done is changing profoundly.
I think there is more of an affinity between the core public services at different levels of government, for example, in the country than was probably the case before. Maybe some increased mobility, even a significant amount, between those groups...it would be among people who have the same calling, but they would have different experiences; and if they came from different levels of government, they would have a different contribution to make.
So I think it's a very important question, and as with many other important questions, there doesn't seem to be a black and white answer.
The Chair: Mrs. Gagnon.
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon (Quebec): I am sorry to be late. I don't know if someone has asked questions regarding the Auditor General of Canada's recommendations.
In a press release dated May 6, dealing with the efficiency of the job evaluation procedure, it was stated that the new standards were not efficient enough. Do you intend to take this recommendation into consideration and to remedy to the situation? What kind of remedies could you provide to be more efficient, now that million of dollars have been spent over the past six years? According to the Auditor General, the process is not efficient enough.
Ms Hubbard: As a government department, the Public Service Commission is always aware of the need to ensure that its activities are cost-efficient. It's always possible to improve the process so that the work is properly done.
Regarding the evaluation system, it's part of the responsibilities of the employer, the Treasury Board, which develops the necessary policies to urge and direct those departments which have to make sure that something is done to deal with the problems detected by the Auditor General.
Ms Gagnon: You say it's up to the employer, but don't you have any suggestions to make to improve the evaluation system?
Ms Hubbard: I know that the employer is setting up a new system to make it easier to describe activities. For example, in the work place, what we have to do as employees changes a lot from one day to the next or from one month to the other. These variations are presently under study. The government is developing a system.
We, as well as the government, are making a lot of efforts to ensure that the system is fair for men and women alike.
.1625
Our agency is one of the departments which will be affected by those decisions. We are called upon to give advice, but we don't play a major role.
Ms Gagnon: Regarding language training within the public service, don't you think there is a contradiction since the funding is being cut while the government insists that more should be done in this regard?
In Quebec, 52% of public servants are bilingual and 98% of people's queries are answered in the language of their choice. With the kind of cuts which are contemplated, it will be difficult to offer the same level of service. Rumour has it that 10% of the public servants who hold bilingual positions are not fluent enough to serve their clients.
Often, when I call this or that department, I am being told to wait until someone can be found who can answer me, or that nobody can and to call back in half an hour.
Don't you think that there is a kind of contradiction there? We are not going to be able to have a bilingual public service. At the end of the day, this need is better answered in Quebec than it is here.
Ms Hubbard: I know there is still work to do within the federal government to serve people in the language of their choice. You have to remember that the Public Service Commission's responsibility is to provide training following...
The manager has to decide whether this or that position is to be bilingual or not. It all depends upon the responsibilities the person who holds this position will have. If the manager decides that the position has to be bilingual, then, what has to be determined is whether it is necessary to give it to a bilingual person right at the beginning, or if it's possible to hire someone who is willing and able to learn a second language, or if other arrangements can be made so that the service is delivered in either language.
The manager can decide that the position is bilingual and that it can be filled by a person who has all the required skills except the linguistic one, as long as the person in question is willing and able to learn the language. Language training is a statutory responsibility and, in the National Capital Region as well as elsewhere across the country, the public service is responsible for providing this training.
The reduction in our resources is not due to the fact that it has been determined that the public service is perfectly bilingual. It's because there is less hiring and therefore, less people assigned to positions which have to be bilingual. If the demand has been decreasing, it's because the public service staff has been cut. May be Commissioner Stewart would like to add something.
Ms Ginette Stewart (Commissioner, Public Service Commission): Over the last 30 years, the Public Service Commission has successfully trained about 100,000 federal public servants. It is interesting to note that the level of success is very high, over 90%.
It should also be underlined that the number of people who maintain the skill they have acquired, whatever the language they learned, is very high.
.1630
We conducted evaluations at various times. Earlier, we used to test public servants every year to see whether they had maintained their linguistic skills, and the level of success was very high. When we decided to test them only every three years, the level of success was still very high. Right now, we conduct evaluations every five years, and we have the same kind of results. So, regarding bilingualism, it is clear that more should be done, but still, the situation is rather encouraging.
Concerning the cuts in language training that Ms Hubbard mentioned, they followed an evaluation and were done for efficiency reasons. Over the last year, the demand for our language training services went down by 30%.
It follows that we have to adjust our resources accordingly, because we don't believe that this trend will change over the next few years. On the contrary, we believe it's going to keep up. However, as an organization, we are fully committed to keep supporting the government's official languages program.
We are confident that with the reduced but skilled resources we have within our organization, we'll be able to reach our objectives.
Ms Gagnon: I would like some clarifications because I don't know whether I got it right or not. You did say that the demand for language training has been decreasing, did you?
Ms Stewart: Yes.
Ms Gagnon: Does this mean that people don't need to learn one language or the other?
Ms Stewart: There are several reasons. If you look at the situation, it can be the result of various factors. On the one hand, as Ms Hubbard mentioned, the public service is decreasing and, as a consequence, there is much less hiring, much fewer positions to be filled.
At the same time, the number of candidates who are bilingual or who know one or the other language or both fairly well is much higher than it was. We believe that all these reasons explain the decreasing demand for language training.
Ms Gagnon: I accept your answer, but I have my doubts, because often when I call various departments, I am told that nobody can answer me in French. So, I have my doubts. Perhaps there is something missing there. I don't know how you evaluate all this, but even if you take into account all the reasons you have given, I doubt there is no need in this regard. Outside the province of Quebec and the National Capital Region, it could be said that bilingualism in non existent in Canada.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bryden, followed by Mr. Jackson. That will end our round of questioning and then we'll huddle for five minutes in camera to talk about future business.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): You were saying that seven out of ten Canadians would like to see the public service representative - representative of what?
Ms Hubbard: Representative of the diversity of the country - that was the question asked. I'm not sure of the exact wording, but this was the intent.
The three characteristics we associate with our responsibilities are competence, non-partisanship and representativeness in the sense of employment equity. We asked particularly for the work to be done because we wanted to find out if Canadians still thought those were important characteristics.
Mr. Bryden: Do you think the people answering that question interpreted diversity of the country to mean equity categories?
Ms Hubbard: I believe we asked the people who did the survey for us, Ekos, to phrase the question to get at that issue.
Mr. Bryden: But I'm asking your judgment. If you were a person in Toronto answering that question, would diversity mean to you the number of women versus men in society? Is that how people define Canada, in your opinion?
.1635
Ms Hubbard: I must say, I hadn't thought about the question. The point I was trying to make is that I'm not sure they used the term ``diversity''. I just don't remember what the question was.
Mr. Bryden: Okay, that's fair.
Let me just point the questions directly at you, then. In your view does the ratio of women to men in the public service reflect Canadian values? Does this give you a sense of Canada? Does the number of women and the number of men have something to do with being Canadian or being Canada?
Ms Hubbard: I would take the view that Canadian citizens would want to feel they had equal access to becoming public servants if they chose to do so.
Mr. Bryden: No, that's not the question. The survey said that seven out of ten Canadians want the public service to be representative. Does representative mean the number of women versus men in Canadian society? I presume that the question meant representative of Canada.
The point I'm driving at is this: what does the number of men versus women in a society have to do with the nature of that society? What is the significance of the ratio of men to women in Canada as opposed to another ratio, perhaps exactly the same, in the United States? Does the number of men versus women, or any of the equity employment categories, have anything to do with being Canadian, with being representative?
Ms Hubbard: I think a country would want to see its professional public service -
Mr. Bryden: I'm sorry, that's still not... I'll have to take you back through this.
Ms Hubbard: I'm obviously not understanding the question.
Mr. Bryden: I know. It's a difficult question because people mix terms. Seven out of ten Canadians want the public service to be representative. I asked you, representative of what? Well, the question presumably is representative of Canada. Representative of Canada in what way? Surely it's representative of Canada as Canada is, and not about other values that could be shared by any country in the world. The United States has a certain proportion of men versus women. That doesn't define the United States, nor does it define China, nor does it define any other country in the world.
Wouldn't it be possible that when people answer that question - seven out of ten Canadians want it to be representative - they want the public service to be representative of Canada in the sense of our regions, in the sense of Madame Gagnon from Quebec, or me from Ontario, or Mr. Harvard from Manitoba? Has the Public Service Commission ever looked at the concept of being representative by region?
Ms Hubbard: I can't answer for the Public Service Commission in the past. I can say that the Public Service Commission has not seen it as an issue that required particular attention from the commission to observe that the public service was or was not representative by region.
Mr. Bryden: Allow me to put it on the table for you. One of the reasons the House of Commons works is that we all come from different parts of the country. A debate, a dialogue, occurs. Often we have very fundamental disagreements, but those fundamental disagreements are often not because we're not Canadian; they're because we come from different regions of Canada. I suggest to you that the public service is similar. To be really effective it ought to have a pool of people who reflect having grown up in different parts of the country. That would make a lot of sense.
If my colleagues agree that it's a worthy request, I would ask you to embark upon an analysis of the public service in terms of regions. Often the complaint from British Columbia, for example, is that no one in Ottawa understands them. I suggest to my colleague across the way that there are probably more people in the public service who understand people from Quebec or northern Ontario, or even from New Brunswick, than from the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan or Alberta. I would just like to put that on the table.
.1640
The Chair: There is a distinction between the public service and the Public Service Commission.
Mr. Bryden: Yes, I understand, but this is the brains and the ethics.
I have great respect for your dedication to the job. It's not a question I can ask of the public service. It's a question I can only ask of the Public Service Commission, and I would very respectfully ask you to consider it and perhaps report back at some future date on the subject.
Ms Hubbard: We'd be glad to look into it.
The other point I would make with respect to that would be that I think about 70% of the federal public service works in the regions outside the national capital region. I'm guessing that many of the people who work in those regions come from places other than central Canada. I say that only because I know that in terms of filling positions, mobility is a very important consideration. We'd be glad to take the question in hand and reflect on how best to get at the issue.
The point you're making certainly is that the public service, in the way it's made up, ought to reflect the various regions of Canada as well as ethnic diversity and gender balance. I think that's probably true. It's related to the point the chairman was making earlier about making sure it was not too isolated and too detached. I'm sorry it took me such a long time to understand what you meant.
Mr. Bryden: That's all right. I went around backwards into it.
The Chair: Mr. Jackson, you have the last question.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Madam Chair, I'd welcome Ms Hubbard and her gang here today.
I was wondering if you have any current mechanisms with regard to whistle-blowing. How are the employees who would do such a thing protected within the system? Technically, what I want to know is whether there is something already there and we're trying to reinvent the wheel here.
Ms Hubbard: Certainly the issue of how to provide an environment in which professional committed public servants who believe something inappropriate is happening feel comfortable bringing that information to light in some way is a very important issue in any country, in any system of governance. Whistle-blowing is one of the ways that some countries have experimented with doing that.
In the federal government in Canada there has not been such a particular initiative, but it seems to me that there are kinds of safeguards. In our system we say that if somebody is deeply concerned they should talk to their supervisor. Of course, there are cases where people feel uncomfortable doing that.
There are a variety of ways which help public servants make those choices, but it's also a bit difficult. In our system the public service is required to loyally carry out the decisions of the government of the day, assuming that what's being asked of them is in fact legal. I think the issue of how to provide that environment, how to make sure that happens, is a question that has to be examined in light of the mechanisms that exist at the moment.
I've not worked in a system where they do have whistle-blowing legislation. From what I understand about the experiences in some countries, primarily in the U.S., it has not had the beneficial impact that people have thought it might have. That's not because I know, it's because of what I've read.
I don't know if any of my colleagues have anything to add on this issue.
Mr. Jackson: I have just one last question. In the area of work, I think on our side we understand some of what's going on with work, rather than jobs, more than some other people. Our country might be a little bit ahead of it. I'm sorry I missed some of your dissertations earlier on.
In terms of this whole unemployment situation, in order for this country to move on from this plateau we're on with this chronic 10% unemployment, a lot of things have to change. How are you responding in that area in order to get us up and beyond the idea that if we do this or we do that the private sector will create jobs? A lot of things are not happening. Some fundamental things have to shift, and that may come from the government. We give you the leadership as to how we want that shift made.
.1645
From your bird's eye view as to the way you are in the leading edge of jobs and your travels, how are you trying to cope with that as you select your leaders and that type of thing?
Ms Hubbard: It is a question that is bedevilling countries around the world, developed and developing.
I spent some time last fall, several months, in a learning exercise to prepare some tools to help strategic thinking. One of the topics the group I was with explored in some depth was the end of work as we know it and what its implications are. It is quite clear that opinion around the world seems to be that something fundamental is going on, driven by a combination of globalization and new technologies. There doesn't seem to be any agreement at all about what to do about it.
There are some who say, for example, that this technological revolution, unlike the earlier revolutions of electricity and steam, goes to the heart of what it is to be human. In effect, it means that there are machines that can decide and can analyse. Previous revolutions have only made us more productive. So there is something really profound that's going on here. It is being felt throughout the world in different ways. It's very difficult to know what to do about it.
From our perspective, and it may seem a little parochial, I guess I would say an institutionalized professional bureaucracy that is deeply committed to doing what it can to understand this phenomenom, not by doing its own research but by making sure that those kinds of issues are raised so that the government of the day can decide how it wants to deal with it, give innovative advice and professionally do the best it can by talking to other people around the world about the issue...
From where we sit in our responsibilities, making sure that the public service advisers are competent, are professional and are not afraid to tell the government of the day what they believe the government might need to know, even if the government of the day would feel uncomfortable at being told that the problem is a problem of... I'm not suggesting the current government feels that way, but if a government were to want to hope that this kind of a problem could be solved quickly or easily, part of the responsibility of the professional public service, if it genuinely believes that isn't going to be the case, is to say that in its advice to government.
I'm not sure that I've answered your question. If I knew more about it I could probably be quite helpful in a much more significant way than I'm afraid we're going to be.
Mr. Jackson: You did quite well on that.
The Chair: On that positive note, I'd like to thank you all for coming and shedding some insights and helping us to understand the special role of the Public Service Commission. Thank you for coming.
Ms Hubbard: Thank you. It's our pleasure.
The Chair: We'll take a one minute recess.
[Proceedings continue in camera]