[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, February 19, 1997
.1534 
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting to order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee resumes its examination of public service renewal initiatives. Today we are pleased to welcome Ms Bourgon, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. Welcome.
Members have received the clerk's fourth report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada, which was tabled in the House on February 3 and referred to this committee pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) the same day.
.1535
With the committee's permission, I'd like to include consideration of this document as part of today's agenda. All members have received it, I believe. If not, we have copies here.
To date, our hearings have served to inform us about the various initiatives that were begun by the government in 1990 to revitalize the public service of Canada and to make the delivery of services more efficient across the country. We've heard from most of the key players today in this renewal process.
Today's meeting is intended to be the last of our hearings on public service renewal initiatives. Our key objective today is to clarify a number of issues and obtain answers to questions still outstanding from our previous hearings.
I'll call upon Ms Bourgon for an opening statement and then we'll entertain questions from the members.
Ms Jocelyne Bourgon (Clerk of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Secretary to the Cabinet): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the interest you've shown in my annual report to Parliament.
I would like first to introduce David Holdsworth. David is the head of senior personnel and management priorities for the Privy Council Office and is therefore quite knowledgeable about every aspect of my annual report.
Mr. Chairman, instead of focusing on all aspects of the report, I take your lead. I'm indeed assuming that people even had a chance to glance through briefly. Since I read some of the transcripts of your earlier deliberations, I thought I would focus on one chapter of my report, the last one, chapter 6, entitled La Relève. It is really the chapter that deals with the men and women serving in the public service today.
In your previous deliberations you had a chance to look at various systems and procedures. This is more Treasury Board's domain than mine, so I thought I would focus on that issue.
Let me try to put the chapter in perspective briefly. Yesterday the Minister of Finance tabled his budget and basically reminded everybody that Canada in 1993-94 had a deficit in the range of 6% of GDP. His budget also signals that by 1998-99 the deficit will be in the range of 1% of GDP. That means essentially zero cash requirement, which means that Canada by that time will have regained its fiscal sovereignty. In other words, we will not depend on foreign markets to lend money to Canadians to keep activities going.
There is room for debate and for political debate about how to realign the role of government, what activities, what priorities, how to do it, at what pace and so on. This is your domain. But what this transformation means for the public service is a huge realignment of roles, unprecedented since World War II. I would like to talk about some aspects of that transformation in the public service.
The transformation that has taken place so far is going to lay the basis from which additional changes will take place. These changes will have to do with choices that will be made by Canadians and their elected representatives in the future, and I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that it will have to do with the way we transform an institution of great significance - the public service and the public sector of the Government of Canada.
Today I'd like to talk about the people who make a career serving government, elected representatives and Canadians. I would like to go to the chapter where I said that this organization is facing what I have put in quotes, ``a quiet crisis''. I said in my report that the institution is facing a quiet crisis for a number of reasons. It is still a quiet crisis because few people are talking about it, maybe not enough. It is also quiet because few people have started to act and bring about changes, and that's where we all have work to do together.
Let me give you some of the signs of the malaise that I see in the public service. They are not the cause and they are not the end point. The signs are something we have to read carefully in order to come up with a prescription for change that will address some of it.
An example of a sign of malaise: I consider it a sign of malaise when some people who have committed their lives to serving the public good come to a point in their career where for the first time they question the career choice they have made. It is a sign of malaise when people who have committed their lives to serving the public good and the public interest, who have remarkable careers, will tell you when asked that they may not advise their children to follow in their footsteps. It is a sign of malaise when you're dealing with university graduates and they tell you that if they had another option, they would not consider a career in the public service. As I said, those are not the causes; they are just the symptoms of the problems we're dealing with.
.1540
Some of the problems we're dealing with are the result of many factors, not one. I've mentioned a long list in the report. Let me mention some. I'm not trying to give you an exhaustive list of all the forces at play that have created some tension within the public service, but just to give us enough of a sense of what some of these factors are so that in our discussion we can push the discussion further and see what we can do.
Factor number one - and these are not in order of priority - is downsizing. No organization of any significance can manage downsizing of the scope that we are managing, over a period of time which ranges from the early 1980s to today - and there is one more year to go before we are through with basically implementing the decisions made to date - without suffering some of the consequences. It would be foolish to assume that it can be done without creating tension and strain on an organization.
Among the signs of that, people who are affected by downsizing have to go through a period of uncertainty and concern about the future. But we should not forget that those who remain with the organization and have to carry on every day providing the service also go through the uncertainty about the future and the traumatisme dans leur organisation. So downsizing of the scope and the scale that we have been managing, even though it has been managed competently in a manner to minimize the traumatic effect, cannot be done without creating tensions and strain on the organization. That's one factor.
The second factor I would mention is the necessary debate among you, elected representatives in the public, about what the proper role of government is. What is the meaning of less government? What should be done differently? What should be the role of the government in the future? This debate has on occasion affected and created tension within the organization. Why? Because it is easy and very human with every one of us providing services to feel a great deal of attachment to the services we provide.
When we go through the debate of whether a service should be maintained, we should not be under the illusion that it's without creating some traumatic effect in the organization. People are proud of not only the work they do but the service they provide and how they provide it. The necessary debate about which services will be provided in the future has created tension and frustration.
That's the second factor. Is it more or less significant than others? I'm just mentioning that it is one factor among others. I'm not disputing that the process had to take place and I'm not disputing that balancing the books for the Government of Canada was a very important goal.
A third factor I would mention is that the demographic reality of the institution is raising serious problems for the future and we have to take action now so that this institution is well positioned to serve you and Canadians well in the future. Here is an example of what I mean.
Between now and the year 2000, 30% of all the executives will be at an age where they could retire without penalty. Don't get me wrong; these people have earned the right to retire if that is their wish. They have put in the years of service, they have served their country, and they have done it well. I'm not disputing rights and privileges. But I'd make a point that in any organization where you have that critical mass of very experienced, knowledgeable people who are ready to retire at a given point in time, it is, to say the least, a challenge for any organization. To make matters worse, while it will be 30% by 2000, it's going to be something close to 70% by 2005. So you can see the slope of that trend.
Let me give you another example of the problem with the demographics within the institution. In 1976, 15% of public servants were under 25. Today it's 1%. In 1976, 17% of public servants were beyond the age of 55. Today it is 7%. I told you something about the slope and I'm now telling you something about the curve. We're losing at both ends. We're losing corporate knowledge, memory, and know-how and we are also losing the capacity to renew and better reflect and represent the Canadian society, which has been changing quite quickly in terms of its demographic profile. So that's another factor.
.1545
Let me mention a fourth factor. I would mention compensation as a factor, one on which we will have to do some work. No public servant expects to make a career in the public sector, to serve the public interest and the public good, and to get the monetary reward that you get in the private sector. Elected officials are not expecting that and appointed officials are not expecting that.
We have nonetheless to ensure that the general working conditions provided to employees allow them to maintain a career dedicated to serving the public good. We have to make sure that it is not necessary for young employees to leave the public sector to raise a family or to put children through university.
After six years of a salary freeze, there are distortions and anomalies that have been created over this period of time that need to be corrected. The government has already signalled the desire to correct them, the freeze has been lifted, and it is back to collective negotiation again. Those are important steps, but again among the factors that have affected the tension or the situation within the public sector I would mention those.
The fifth factor I would mention is the degree of appeal of the employees in the public sector today for the private sector. The private sector and the public sector have always competed for the best resources. There's nothing new there. But I would argue that the trend we see indicates that our employees today are of even greater appeal to the private sector than they were in the 1960s or even in the 1970s.
Why? Because the private sector is more like us than they used to be. They are today the knowledge industry. They are dealing with information technology and they are developing strategic alliances. Those are some of the skills that you find with very qualified employees within the public sector, and therefore we have found that the effort of the private sector to recruit staff from the public sector has been increasing.
My colleagues in every other province seem to have noticed the same thing. When we next meet this summer it's one of the issues we will discuss together, because I believe the pattern goes well beyond the public sector of the Government of Canada.
Sixth, I don't want to leave the impression that the situation within the public sector is only the result of external factors. It is also the result of internal factors. There are things that could have been done inside to improve the conditions of our employees and to provide managers with the flexibility needed to have an organization performing as well as possible that were not done in time. There are mitigating measures that could have been introduced that were not introduced. The public servants themselves need to take ownership of the levers within their hands to make sure they create a modern and vibrant institution.
For example, external recruitment is probably at an all-time low. Interdepartmental mobility, which is the base from which you give diversity of knowledge and experience to your employees, is at an all-time low. There are things within the control of public sector managers that could have been introduced that would enhance the richness of a career in the public sector, the interest and the appeal, and would have enhanced the motivation of our own staff. All of that will have to be considered.
What are we going to do about that? I think we'll have to go back to basic principles. A career in the public sector today has tremendous appeal, as it has had in the past. It has appeal for people serving today and it has appeal for many Canadians who would love to join in and serve Canadians and make a contribution. There is no greater reward than to be given the opportunity to make a contribution and to make a difference.
What are we going to do to rebuild motivation, pride in the institution, and enthusiasm among staff? In part we'll go back to basic principles. We have asked every department to come forward between now and the end of March, but ideally we will finish our report around the end of June, I would say. Therefore, we will look forward to your report, Mr. Chairman, at the end of April to assist us. We have asked every department to look at their situation, to know more about their staff, to do some serious human resources planning, analyse their situation, produce their plan of action, and answer two or three questions.
What can they do that is within their control to ensure that their organization is ready for the future? What can they do that is within their control to ensure that their employees are given the opportunity to make a contribution at the limit of their talent and potential and are ready for the future? What are those initiatives that can only be fulfilled if we take an initiative together instead of leaving it to the initiative of each department?
.1550
So as they shape their plans, we will be working on a corporate plan, a series of initiatives that will require the willingness of the men and women in the public sector and those in public life, the support of government and the support of Parliament.
This is, Mr. Chairman, very briefly what chapter 6 was all about.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Monsieur Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé (Lévis): Please don't interpret my comments as an attack, Ms Bourgon, but I must say that I am somewhat astounded that you made your comments in English only, given that your mother tongue is French and that there are some francophone members of Parliament here. Is that a common practice within the Privy Council?
Ms Bourgon: No, the Privy Council is very bilingual and everyone works in his or her preferred language. All employees produce, speak and debate in the language of their choice. I must admit that it is very easy to switch from one language to another when one is making a speech. You are right to remind me of this. I can assure you that I will be very pleased to speak to you in French only.
When we are following an outline in making our comments, it is very easy to use the language of the person we are speaking to. I'm sure you will appreciate that this is a normal tendency. However, I will have no hesitancy whatsoever in speaking French with you.
Mr. Dubé: Fine. While your report did not necessarily focus on human resources and the public service, I would like to know whether francophones have been progressing within the management ranks or in any other category?
Ms Bourgon: I believe you discussed this subject with Mr. Massé, who gave the committee some information on it. I do not have the most up-to-date demographic data, and I know that there have been some concerns in this area. We have begun to manage the downsizing exercise so as to avoid losing our francophone employees. Two years after implementation - the most recent data date back to March, 1996 - we have found that the opposite phenomenon has occurred: there has been a proportional increase in the number of bilingual positions and staff and in francophone representation.
I don't have the most recent data for the EX category, but I know that the same trend can be found among assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers. Francophone representation exceeds their demographic weight. Consequently, the concerns we had at the outset when the exercise was introduced in 1993, have not materialized.
Mr. Dubé: On another subject, a motion, or perhaps even a bill, designed to restore the balance between the number of men and women, was introduced at one point. In light of all the points you mentioned, including the aging workforce and reduced interdepartmental mobility, can it be said, despite the government's objectives in introducing this bill, that women are not progressing within the public service?
Ms Bourgon: Here too, I am pleased to be able to offer you some reassurance. The data on this date back to 1996 as well, as the 1997 data are still not available. Between 1993 and 1996, the representation of women in the public service increased from 46% to 48%. Despite downsizing, the percentage of women increased. In the EX category, where there was also reason for concern, the representation of women went from 17% to 21%. I believe the percentage of women deputy ministers increased from 10% to 31%. I would have to check these figures.
Mr. Dubé: May I still ask a few more questions, Mr. Chairman?
[English]
The Chairman: You have a few more minutes.
Monsieur Lebel.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel (Chambly): I have just one question. You say you have some projections, and I understand that you are concerned about the fact that young people are not entering the public service. Some public servants are reaching retirement age.
You spoke about mobility within government. Are you not afraid of confrontations with unions in this regard? How do you plan to handle this issue?
Ms Bourgon: Very carefully.
Mr. Lebel: Yes.
Ms Bourgon: That is an excellent question. A healthy organization is one in which all age groups and all segments of society are represented in a balanced way.
.1555
What I have noticed, and I certainly understand why this is happening, is that in managing downsizing, we stopped our university hiring in a number of areas and we therefore stopped the introduction of new blood. In managing downsizing, we encouraged people who were close to retirement to leave early by offering them financial incentives.
However, by putting an end to hiring and by encouraging early departures, we are depriving ourselves of two precious elements within an organization. On the one hand, we are losing the experience, knowledge and abilities of people with long careers, people aged 50 to 55 and over. In the past, some public servants continued their careers well beyond age 55. Fifty-five is too young to leave the public service and too young to leave an area in which one has a great deal of expertise. In addition, because we have not been hiring, we have lost the new ideas that young people under the age of 25 provide to an organization. I understand why this has happened - it was because of the downsizing exercise.
When I think of what type of institution we want to have by the year 2005, my answer is one in which all age groups are represented, in which Canadian diversity is represented, in which all regions of the country are represented, and one in which our linguistic groups are represented. This is the objective we must seek to achieve. I understand why we are in the position we find ourselves in today. I am not blaming anyone - quite the contrary - but I do acknowledge that we must restore the diversity within the organization.
Mr. Lebel: My other question relates to current public service hiring policies. I know that there is an attempt to establish some demographic balance. If for example 10% of the population is of a particular origin - and I will not mention one so as to avoid offending anyone - it would be reasonable that 10% of the public service be from this ethnic group. Do you sometimes face a dilemma when you have to chose the best candidate between one who has the required qualification and another who has none of them, but who meet certain demographic requirement? Is this a problem with our policies?
Ms Bourgon: The problem does not occur in those terms. The federal public service has no quotas. In my view, this is very wise, because no one wants to be the target group of any one else. We all want to know that we are where we are because we are the best at what we are doing. The policy of the government of Canada, and I know that Ms Hubbard discussed this with you, is based on merit. We try to have a diversified institution while seeking to comply with the merit principle. The two are not incompatible - we do not compromise on defining merit or in seeking the best candidate.
Very often, seeking to achieve this balance requires that we make extra efforts to look for candidates who are not only qualified, but also as diversified as possible. If there are no such candidates available, and the only candidates who reach the interview are similar, we can anticipate the results ahead of time. More preliminary work must be done, there must be better research, competition zones must be broadened, and more work must be done. However, that does not mean that we implement quotas, something we do not have.
As far as visible minorities are concerned, I would say that we still have a long way to go. A report tabled today reminds us that visible minorities account for approximately 10% of the labour force in Canada. Unfortunately, only 4% of public servants are from visible minority groups. Here too, I understand why this has happened. We were not recruiting during the years when the population explosion was changing Canada's demographic profile. Consequently, we did not hire these deserving, competent people at the time they were available. We must bear this in mind in planning for the future.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lebel. Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): I very much appreciated your optimistic presentation, Ms Bourgon, particularly because I have a great deal of trust in you as a person. When we were elected in 1993, the government was facing an incredible financial problem, and took steps to correct it.
.1600
Unfortunately, we had to make some major changes in the public service, which not only saddened me, but also angered me. The loss of 45,000 jobs - or even 55,000, if we believe the media - is quite outrageous. I appreciate the way in which the cutbacks were made, which I think was proper, humane, professional and acceptable to all. That is what I have found from meetings with people in my office.
However, I have seen certain things happening to the public service, an institution for which I have a great deal of fondness. The public service is there to serve the general public, and I am seeing a parallel service spring up all of a sudden.
[English]
I am afraid that we are developing a twin public service, one that is professional and aging and doesn't feel supported in general at this point, versus a second public service that is the hired hands, the contracting out for short-term tasks that often turn into a variety of problems, which I could discuss at other meetings and have discussed at other meetings. You are knowledgeable and I am knowledgeable of the problems this has created.
Are we going to go on developing a twin public service, one that is professional, aging and getting to be discouraged, and a second one of contract people with no future with the government, only a future if they have a small business or belong to a firm where it pays to have contracts with the government? Are we heading in that direction?
[Translation]
Ms Bourgon: I would like to go back to your first comment about the contribution of one group in the public sector. I would say that the downsizing was managed in a competent and professional way. I would add that this is true for two reasons.
[English]
The first is that the Government of Canada gave us the tools to do it, gave us the instrument, gave us the program and the funding for what was required to do it well. Without that, we could not have done what we have done.
The second reason is that if downsizing has been managed well and competently, we all have a great debt of gratitude to the human resources community. Those are the people in every department who had to help every manager and every employee to manage downsizing. It is too easy to forget their contribution, so through you, Chair, and through you, Mr. Bellemare, I'd like to recognize their contribution.
Now for the second part of your question. As we manage downsizing, are we moving toward a public sector that is of two types: a professional, non-partisan, career public service of the type we have known in the past, and a different one, which is a contractual public service? On that one, we all have to read our crystal ball and see what the distant future could be.
[Translation]
I must say that my vision of the future and the trends I am seeing do not lead us there, Mr. Bellemare. However, I do see an acceleration in what we experienced previously. I would like to give you a description of another chapter of my annual report, the one that discusses diversity in the public sector.
[English]
When we talk about the public sector, we have a tendency to say the Government of Canada, the public sector of the Government of Canada. We have this notion that it's one thing. It was never one thing, back in the past, now, or in the future.
The public sector of the Government of Canada is comprised of the following: we have24 departments of the type you just described, but we have 37 crown corporations. They have a role and a unique contribution to make. They are a part of our past and our present, and they will be there in the future. We have 26 tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies of all kinds operating at arm's length from the government. They were there in the past. They will be there in the future. We have48 service agencies of all kinds.
.1605
With you, sir, I read my crystal ball about what the future could be. I would say that Canada will continue to be served by a professional, non-partisan public service that is managed through a network of departments of a type we've known in the past. The diversity of management models and institutional models we've used in the past are likely to become even more diverse. The trend is toward integrated service delivery, management of horizontal issues, and so on.
Canada will continue to experiment with different institutional arrangements, but this is not a discontinuity from our past. It is in continuity from where we've been before. That is the trend I see.
[Translation]
I don't necessarily see more contractual arrangements. They meet short-term, specific or seasonal needs. At the end of program review, when we have finished implementing it in 1998, we will have to look at the question you have raised. Will we see increased reliance on contract work, rather than permanent work? You have raised the issue at a time when we are between the two stages in implementing these decisions.
[English]
Mr. Bellemare: Presently, I totally disagree with contracting out. This committee knows very well some of the reasons I've given. If we are saving $2 billion or $3 billion by contracting out, by removing some staff, we are then contracting out and spending a minimum of $5 billion. I tell you it's much more than that; it could be $10 billion in contracting out services, if not $14 billion. That's wasting money and wasting the culture of the public service away.
I really hope this foolishness of contracting out is going to stop. I could enumerate some of the foolishness, some of the specifics of the abuse that goes on regarding contracting out. I would like to do this now. I don't want to berate my people here continually on the same topic, but if you ever want me to go to your office and give you specifics, I'd be extremely happy to do so.
You've said good things. It was all kind of motherly and I appreciate that. It's nice to hear these things. But what the heck are you going to be doing immediately regarding salary freeze, contracting out, hiring, and rejuvenation, which you talked about? You didn't give us specifics. You didn't give us dates. It was a maybe. You didn't say maybe, but that was the word that came out. It's wishful thinking.
What are the actual things you're doing so that young graduates can get jobs with you, so that we don't lose our best people to the private sector, and so that people are paid fairly? That includes pay equity. What are you doing now? Are we just wishfully thinking ahead to maybe three governments away from now?
[Translation]
Ms Bourgon: I would always be pleased to continue our discussion about contract work whenever and wherever you would like. So let us leave this matter to one side. You asked what we are doing at the moment. That is an excellent question.
Let me start with the work that is underway at the moment, if I may. I will start by making a comment, and then I will explain what was asked for. It cannot be said that the public sector has been tremendously successful in planning its human resources. In fact, it is astonishing to note that the Canadian government has been involved in some areas of planning for at least 30 years. It has been planning programs and objectives and priorities through business plans and estimates for a very long time. A similar approach involving as much effort was not applied to planning our human resources. As a result, we've asked all departments to draw up a human resources plan by the end of March. This is something that has not been done for years.
We did not include the agencies I mentioned earlier, because we thought that might be overly ambitious.
.1610
We agree with you: it is better to take concrete, fast, short-term action, rather than trying to do everything at once, and not get the desired results.
The 24 departments I mentioned have until the end of March to prepare a human resources plan and an action plan. So these are concrete steps which apply at two levels. Which measures are within the department's control, and which can be taken only horizontally, throughout the whole public sector?
Between March and June, an advisory committee will reveal all the departmental action plans, will integrate them and will establish a work plan. That is what I was thinking of when I said that your report, which is to come out in April, could not come at a better time. It is a wonderful coincidence: we could not have hoped for anything better, because it will come out after we have received the departmental plans, and before we draft the overall action plan. We will be able to take into account the concerns you identify, and include them in our plan. That is one point.
What else will we do? We have found that one of the things that make a career in the public service so rich is that it offers diversity. Our people are motivated by the opportunity to contribute, to meet challenges and to have a rich career. I told you as well that interdepartmental mobility was at its lowest level in a long time. We therefore decided to set up a program in which we will be inviting people to come forward so that our assistant deputy ministers are appointed at level. This involves a collective or corporate effort to offer a variety of assignments to those who wish them. That is a concrete measure.
At our request, the Public Service Commission has presented a proposal to develop an accelerated program for our EXs. Because of the downsizing exercise, some of our junior-level EXs found themselves at the same level and in the same position for a very long time, much longer than that of their predecessors ten years earlier.
Those who are prepared to make the necessary effort and to do difficult assignments for certain lengths of time, will be given an opportunity to develop and accelerate their careers so that they get to a higher level. We are not without concrete programs; there are several of them. I think the input we get from the department will be the starting point for what will become our overall plan.
When we meet to discuss contracting out, I will be pleased to give you a list of the initiatives underway at the moment.
[English]
The Chairman: You'll be able to pick up your line of questioning on the next round. I'll go to Madame Beaumier and then Monsieur Lebel.
Ms Beaumier (Brampton): Thank you.
I'm wondering if you have included your list on what are core programs as opposed to non-core programs.
The second part is that I think you and I - I'm not known for my diplomacy, so I'll never make it in the foreign service - may differ a little in the opinion of why so many upper-level public service people are being grabbed at by the private sector. That's not to say that they're not extremely well qualified and maybe the best in the country, but I believe that in many cases it's because of the connections they have that will benefit many companies in the privatization of many of these departments.
I'd like to know how the decisions are taken for privatization. It appears to me that in some of the decisions we've adopted the attitude that if it makes money, government shouldn't be involved; we should only be handling those departments that are money losers.
One of the areas I refer to is the air traffic systems of the airports. I also have a bit of a problem that if in fact immigration is going to be privatized, it may be conducted out of Manila and these decisions will be made by non-Canadians, if the bidding process should grant that an American firm or another firm would be getting this contract.
Ms Bourgon: Let me try to cover as many of the points as I can.
On the question of roles, in the second part of the report I did cover a summary of the roles on which the realignment of the activities in the Government of Canada have been taking place. Really, I did not invent anything new. I was merely repeating what Mr. Massé, the President of the Treasury Board, tabled in the House when he tabled a document entitled Getting Government Right.
.1615
Basically what he described, and I summarized, was that thousands of decisions have been made in the course of program review, mainly reflected in the 1995-96 budget. When everything is said and done, if you're trying to get a snapshot of what you are realigning toward in terms of key roles, there are five. One, it is the role of the Government of Canada to ensure that Canada speaks with one voice in the community of nation. Two, it's the role of the Government of Canada to ensure that you have a well-performing economic union; three, that you have a well-performing social union; four, that we manage competently les mises en commun, the pooling of resources; and five, that the government is the guardian of citizens' rights and entitlements in a society governed by the rule of law.
Each department or each manager of a program or each employee could say, well, my program is the following, so where do I fit? You find that in many cases one service or one activity contributes to one or more of these goals. It's not rare that one activity contributes to more than one goal. So in terms of realigning roles, that in a nutshell would be the summary.
In terms of why we are losing senior people, you may differ from me on why we are losing them, that it is not so much because of the factors I mentioned, but it could be something else, connection with business and so on. I just want to go back to that second point. Is that okay?
Ms Beaumier: Yes.
Ms Bourgon: If I look at the DM community and the very senior ranks in the public sector, the number one reason we are losing some of them is that they have reached the age of retirement without penalty.
We have to be careful when we deal with the notion of whether we are losing people. I cannot use the expression ``losing people'' when talking of people who have put in 30 or 35 years of service, who have served well, who have reached the point where they are entitled to what they have contributed towards, which is a pension. They decide they want a life that is slightly less demanding than the pace they've maintained for many years, and they nevertheless want to continue to make a contribution. A number of them in the last two years have made a choice either to work for a national association or to go to the private sector. At the most senior ranks, this is what is happening.
I am more concerned about what I see at another level of the organization, where we're losing people before their time, well before they've put in all the years. There you have all kinds of factors. I'm not disputing the one you've mentioned, but I would argue that all the factors I have mentioned play in some fashion.
On privatization, I'd like to get out of Canada and back to Canada. When other countries - Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. - had to deal with a similar challenge to the one that has been referred to, which is balancing the books and regaining fiscal sovereignty, it was a fundamental part of the realignment of the role of the government to explore privatization.
It has not been the case in Canada to the degree seen in other countries. The major thrust toward privatization that you may have looked at in Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. did not happen in Canada. That is not to say there were not specific cases of privatization; there were some, but not of the scope and level we have seen in other countries. That's a very specific Canadian difference.
When the government came to the decision to privatize some activities, in many cases it erred on the side of what ministers have started to describe as commercialization, which is to move to a different model. You've used the example of the air navigation service, which is a not-for-profit corporation. You try to get an institution that gives you the best of two worlds: not yet the market discipline and not the full control of the public sector. ANS is of that breed, if I can describe it that way.
[Translation]
Is there a massive trend toward privatization within the government of Canada? Honestly, I see no such trend. There have been some specific cases, such as the privatization of CN. There have been some very specific cases, which are important, in my view, because there are few of them.
However, there is a significant trend toward exploring alternative institutions, such as not-for-profit corporations, which is something that has been tried in Canada, but in very few other countries. There is something uniquely Canadian about this type of approach.
[English]
What did I not cover?
Ms Beaumier: I wanted to know if you have a list of the core and non-core services or the essential services -
Ms Bourgon: That was my first point about the five key roles. Every service can be connected to any one of these five roles.
.1620
The Chairman: We're going to move to the second round of questioning. Monsieur Lebel.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Ms Bourgon, I didn't have enough time to ask you my final question on the first round. You were saying that visible minorities made up 10% of the Canadian population, but that they account for only 4% of the public service. I understand there is a problem, but what are you doing at the moment to overcome it? For example, could the RCMP decide that 20% of the candidates it hires will be from visible minorities? In order to make up the 6% gap, could it be decided that only people from visible minority groups will be hired as of today? In 25 years, we could find ourselves with a public service in which 10% would manage 90%, most of whom were from a non visible minority group.
Ms Bourgon: When I referred to the 10%, I was not referring to the percentage of visible minorities within Canadian society, but rather within the Canadian labour force. I was comparing it to the 4% figure for visible minorities within our labour force.
Very little has been done to improve their representation, and some deplore this fact. One of the reasons is that our recruitment efforts are at their lowest level. Your colleagues asked earlier how we were going to handle our relationships with the unions. We have to understand that we cannot hire massively and undergo downsizing at the same time. Out of respect for our employees, we have to manage the downsizing exercise properly, but once we have completed this task, we should turn to the future and look at correcting under-representations of this type.
I understand that when Ms Hubbard, the President of the Public Service Commission, appeared before you, she explained that the Canadian government had not established a quota policy. We have not done that, and we will not do what you have just suggested. We will not decide to staff all positions so as to correct under-representations by a particular group, regardless of merit. The Public Service Commission, an agent of Parliament, quite rightly requires us, under its enabling legislation, to respect the merit principle at all times. The merit principle is not incompatible with an organization that seeks to achieve adequate representation of Canadian society as a whole. A number of businesses in the private sector have done a better job of reducing the under-representation, while still seeking the best candidates.
So the question is how to go about this.
Mr. Lebel: I would like to interrupt you, Ms Bourgon, because you are taking up some of my time. I would like to give the example of the cadet from the Quebec police institute in Nicolet, who came first in his class, had a black belt in judo, in other words, someone who is very highly qualified. He was told not to even think about being hired by the RCMP because of the problem I mentioned. He was told that his application could not be considered until 2040, by which time he would be too old to be hired as a policeman. This type of thing happens frequently. I'm sure that Mr. Bellemare, who does not usually share my views, has also experienced situations of this type. It is unfortunate to have to tell a young Canadian or Quebecker that unfortunately for him he will have to forget about a position in the public service, because he or she is not part of a targeted minority. All I wanted to do is make you aware of the issue, because I know this is the case at the moment in the RMCP, even though you said they were not hiring.
Ms Beaumier raised an interesting aspect on which I would also like to ask you some questions. I will be talking about the government's withdrawal from certain areas. We know that trends that start in the United States generally don't take that long to reach us, perhaps 5, 10 or 15 years. I was recently watching a program on detention centres that are managed by the private sector. This is a way of reducing costs. We should ask prisoners how they are treated; that may be a different matter.
.1625
Are the government and its public service heading toward this type of contract referred to byMs Beaumier?
Ms Bourgon: I would like to come back to the issue of visible minorities very quickly. You helped me when you mentioned that your example concerned the RCMP. I am referring to departments, where you referred to an agency. This is an important distinction, and one that allows us to reconcile our two positions. An agency such as the RCMP or the Armed Forces has the status of a separate employer, and the affirmative action policies of the Commission are not applied to such bodies in the same way. Now I think we're on the same wavelength.
I'm not aware of any trend within the Correctional Service to copy the American experience. We can find out about that and inform the committee whether there is any interest along these lines. What I was trying to describe in response to Ms Beaumier's question was the trend in some countries to privatize parts of the public sector. The approach has been somewhat different in Canada: we've tried to remove some of the constraints imposed on particular activities in the public service in order to give them more flexibility.
[English]
That's what led to the policy of the President of the Treasury Board on alternative service delivery.
So it's a different choice. It is not moving from public to private; it is moving from a public sector model to a different type of public sector model where you are not operating under the same degree of constraint that is imposed on departments. That led to my example of crown corporations, service agencies, service units of all kinds. So it's a different trend. The trend that you describe has not taken hold in Canada in the manner you describe.
The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Madame Bourgon, I'm happy that you've raised these issues around the public service and its future. I say that because I happen to share many of the concerns with respect to the public service.
I wish the Reform Party were here, because I happen to believe there's a kind of ugly right-wing virus in our country that is harmful to government and to public service. There is no doubt about it that in recent years the private sector has become the dominant sector. It was not that long ago that we didn't have some of these huge global corporations that exist today, and they draw away a lot of the talent that perhaps otherwise would have gone to government.
It wasn't always like that. If you go back to Macdonald's day or Laurier's day, to some extent government was the only game in town. Very often government got the benefit of some of the very best brains and best people around. Now I find that the government is in strong competition with the private sector to get the best and the brightest, and I don't think we're always winning. I wish we were. Government, whether you believe it should be small, medium-sized or large, needs very good people.
I have only a couple of questions. One, is this competition for talent that I allude to with the private sector more serious at some levels than at others? You did mention DMs in your remarks a few minutes ago.
Two, there is also the matter of compensation. Can we win the battle for the best brains and the greatest talent through better compensation?
Three, can it be done through the collective bargaining process, or will we have to consider some other avenue to help build up the public service? The collective bargaining process, which I certainly support, is to some extent adversarial. Perhaps we should be considering other avenues to help build up the public service.
Ms Bourgon: On your first point, we are certainly in agreement on the importance of the public sector.
.1630
Let me make a comment I made to a group of members of a national business association - and I will not mention the name of the association. I was reminding them one night that in the 1960s, if we're honest, it was not comfortable to be a leader of a private company that was very successful. They were under tremendous pressure. They were being publicly criticized. There was this unease about successful business and making profit and so on. I can remember headlines that were fashionable at the time.
The pendulum did swing, and in the 1980s it was not very comfortable to be a manager in the public sector, because presumably good managers were all in the private sector, and if only the public sector could be run like a business all the problems would be solved. The literature that was coming out from some management schools was basically saying there's only one way to manage and it's the private sector way, which we all know is wrong.
So in the 1960s it was uncomfortable to be a successful businessperson in Canada. In the 1980s it was uncomfortable to make a commitment to the public good, whether it was as an elected official or an appointed official.
I wish we could stop the pendulum from swinging and we could get the political elite in the public sector and the business elite in the private sector to see that a country like Canada is best served when you have a well-performing private sector working side by side with the best-performing public sector we're able to provide Canada with. That is the success story for the next millennium. And maybe if we were to approach it that way, instead of just swinging back and forth because that seemed to be the trend, we could build something where the expertise of the private sector is used in the public sector and the expertise of the public sector, because there's an awful lot, could be used and inspire the private sector on occasion.
So I think we fully agree on the point.
Mr. Harvard: On one point about the competition, at one time, and it's not that long ago, the perception was, or the reality - you tell me - that entry-level public servants or perhaps those at levels a little higher than entry level earned more than the private sector. And of course with the upper levels there was no contest: the people in the private sector earned a hell of a lot more.
What is it today, especially at the lower levels? Is it getting to the point now where the private sector is catching up?
Ms Bourgon: I'll be careful in my answer. You will understand that we are in the process of engaging in dialogue with our unions, and I don't want to do anything that would create tension, for the very reason you mentioned, which is we want to be back, all of us, at the table and we want to work in a cooperative way. So let me be more general in my answer.
I would say that in many of our groups the public sector of Canada is very competitive at the entry level - not in all groups, but in many of our groups we are very competitive at the entry level. You know the answer at the most senior levels, so I won't lecture you on that. But your question was at what level do you feel the most pressure.
I will wait for the plan coming back from every department so that we don't deal with rumours and speculation and hypotheses and we deal instead with facts. But my hypothesis, before I review all the plans, is that we will find that the levels where we are the most at risk are when people we are able to recruit, because we provide an exciting career and good conditions... People grow through the ranks, get the experience, get the knowledge, and they are the best. They've achieved the development. They reach the point of being mid-level in the ranks. They are 35 to 40 years old. They have all the best years ahead of them to pay back on the investment we've made. This is the time when they have the greatest appeal to private sector recruitment, and that's where I see the highest risk. It is not at the entry level.
If people like you and me have decided to serve the public service, it is obviously not for compensation conditions. Therefore that's neither at the junior nor at the most senior level where the risks seem to be the greatest. It is when you have invested ten years of experience in your staff and they have all these skills and they are extremely marketable.
This is not true in every category, but there are some groups for which I could tell you immediately that any one of our employees leaving in that specific field could make much better money than we can come up with.
The Chairman: Mr. Murray, please.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,Madam Bourgon.
I don't know that I have a question, but I might have a few rambling comments here.
.1635
It strikes me that perhaps we have to let the pendulum you're talking about swing back - not just in terms of what you're describing, but the economy as a whole. Our whole economy is living through a time when a lot of people have been displaced by loss of manufacturing jobs, people who fell through the cracks, and we have to look out for them.
Reading the document and reading about la relève, it seemed to me there is a preoccupation with human resources planning and development to the point of almost forgetting that the public service exists to essentially work on policy development or program delivery or whatever other chores there are.
What I'm probably trying to say is I think this will self-correct at some point. A lot of people would like to have careers in the public service. I see them all the time in my office. There are a lot of highly qualified young people who'd love to work in the public service. And I think as long as they feel they can make a difference while they're there and be paid adequately they'll enjoy their careers.
I'm just not convinced that we need to stay up too late worrying about the future of the public service. It will be redefined by the jobs the government wants the public service to do, and then as the financial resources are available we'll be able to hire the people we need to do those jobs. And as some people retire we'll hire other people. Unfortunately, there is a lag, and perhaps we should be addressing that in terms of recruitment of young people.
Your report seems to refer mainly to kind of upper-middle and senior management. You talk about how exciting a career in public service is and what kind of meaning it has for the individual. If you're a CR-4 or an AS-3 or something, I don't know if you're really all that excited about a job in public service versus another bureaucracy, perhaps a large bank or a telephone company or something. I don't know that it is all that much more exciting in the public service. I think it can be exciting if people feel they have a role to play in the development of policy.
I would also make the comment that it was probably much more interesting to be a cabinet minister in the heady days of the sixties, seventies, early eighties, when there was money to spend. MPs now can't go around promising to deliver federal buildings to our ridings. We can't promise to deliver very much at all to our ridings. It's not just the public service; all of us have had to live with these constraints. It's not as exciting a time, perhaps, when you don't have a lot of money to spend, to be in government.
Where do you see that you need the help right now? Is it policy development? Is it program delivery? If so, what are we doing, as government, about recruitment? Do we have people going on university campuses? If so, are we looking for generalists or are we looking for particular types of people?
Ms Bourgon: I have a couple of comments in exchange for yours.
There is no question that a career in the public sector is an exceptional career. There is no question that it has, and will continue to have, great appeal. That's why people come and do what you're doing. That's why people come and do what we're doing. Whether it's an appointed official or an elected official, there is nothing like the sense of excitement of being in the public sector and contributing to the public good. Every one of the people who have left our institution after a long career and do something else miss it. I think we agree on that. The appeal will always be there.
At the same time, sir, we cannot look at the demographic picture I was describing and say ``Between now and 2005, let's not worry; let's not do anything about it. It's just a turnover of 70% of some of our categories.'' No organization, small or large, private or public, can deal with that kind of a turnover without planning, preparing, and taking action. It would not be responsible not to do something about it.
It's not an issue just for the EX; it's an issue for all groups. I can give you the same picture for the scientific community. The people who have joined our labs, by and large, joined the organization in the sixties. They are now getting at the point in their lives where they are entitled to retire if they so wish. I wish I would not have to worry and could assume they will be there until 2050, but it would not be responsible for me as the head of the public service to simply assume the problem will go away. So I'm stuck with doing some planning about it, some thinking about it, and some forward-looking about it.
I do know that our ability to attract is very good because of the importance and the excitement of a career dedicated to the public good. So I agree with your premise. I'm just disputing that it will simply self-correct because of the magnitude of what we're dealing with.
.1640
Now, at the end of the day, does the degree of performance of the public sector make a difference? I would join your colleague who earlier talked about the importance of a public service. I believe that the performance of the public sector, at all points in time, makes a difference in terms of the competitive edge of a country in the community of nations. It's not just a draw on the economy; it is a net contributor to the economy. It contributes to productivity. It contributes to competence. It contributes to edge - to attract investment and talent in one country, and retaining them as opposed to losing them. It is a very significant indicator of performance for a nation in the community of nations. My sense is that it will be increasingly so in the future, in a global economy.
So we agree that it matters. We agree that it has a great capacity to attract. I worry about our ability to retain and to prepare enough of the people we will need in time for the turnover that will inevitably take place because of the demographic nature of our institution. But we agree on the goal.
Mr. Murray: I wasn't trying to suggest that you don't need to do any planning.
Ms Bourgon: No, I know.
Mr. Murray: I also do agree, wholeheartedly - and it's not just me; there are many business leaders who also agree with your premise that a good public service is a good business that is good for the country.
I want to come back again to where you see that we need help. I'm not sure that you addressed that. When you look at what the role of government is going to be in the future... There was a time when we had a government - we probably still do - full of policy analysts. I'm not sure if they contributed a great deal necessarily to the life of the country. I'm sure there are many still there doing a decent job. With constraints on spending, are we seeing less emphasis on policy development and more on just providing service to clients?
Ms Bourgon: These two roles will always be there because they are so central to the role of the public sector.
We play two roles. We shape policies, we do the research, we do the analysis to be able to support the government of the day and come up with policy options, policy proposals. It's a very key role. Therefore, for our policy community we need to make sure that we groom them and give them the diversity of experience they need to hone their skills and develop the experience they need to be as good at their art as possible. And we have another role, which is to serve Canadians. We need to worry about efficiency, effectiveness, quality of service, an integrated approach, dealing with citizens in an integrated way instead of our stovepipes.
The concern with policy and service are both there to stay. We need to come up with concrete measures that will help these two functions to be as good as possible. But it's going to be different things. For policy it could be diversity of experience. For those who are service providers, it could be a different kind of preparation, a different kind of training. They need attention in both cases.
The Chairman: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): I think Madame Bourgon has probably answered a lot of the questions I had, but I guess I'll ask her one.
I'm enjoying your dissertation here. I'm learning a lot. I'm glad that you're the one who's leading the public service. Obviously you're a very competent person.
Are we satisfying the needs of what they call a learning organization - that is, that people recognize that when they have a job their role is to serve people and to try to stay on top of it rather than to become bureaucratic?
Ms Bourgon: Allow me a bit of an aside. To me, bureaucratic is not a nasty word - at least not always. There are times when we do want the best of the bureaucratic process, which means to treat everyone in the same manner because they have the same rights and the same privileges. There are times and places where the best model is a bureaucratic model, well understood. There are times and places where it is not the best model.
Moving from that aside to the main point, we have nonetheless a tendency to self-inflict an awful lot of constraints on ourselves. We need to simplify, simplify, simplify. We need to simplify the way we organize the work, to rebuild flexibility in our management procedures. We need to resist the temptation that whenever there is a problem you just issue one more guideline that applies to every organization I've mentioned.
.1645
We need to build systems that are not rooted on the concept that no one is to be trusted and therefore you have a policy that is so thick that unless you do everything like this, you cannot be trusted to have any kind of judgment. We need to simplify, we need to build on trust, we need to rebuild flexibility in the organization.
That is not in conflict with the concept that there are times and places where the best way to serve is a bureaucratic approach that ensures that every citizen is treated as an equal bearer of rights. There are times and places where it's not the case.
So there's a lot we need to do to simplify the way we run the public sector, and you have to be part of that. It is easy to demand one more policy every time something goes wrong. It is easy to request one more centralized approach each time there is a mistake. We all have to learn to resist that.
I don't think I'm answering your question very well, sir.
Mr. Jackson: You did well. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Bellemare: Ms Bourgon, could you please answer in no more than three words? This is turning into a love-in. You are using so many fine-sounding words that people could fall asleep listening to you. I would like to turn to some very practical, down-to-earth issues. I would like yes or no answers, or one or two-word answers.
[English]
Pay equity: when?
[Translation]
Ms Bourgon: A judge is to rule on that. As soon as he has completed his deliberations, the government will make a decision.
[English]
Mr. Bellemare: Salary freeze.
[Translation]
Ms Bourgon: That has been removed.
Mr. Bellemare: The government is now supposed to begin negotiations with one or the other of its unions. There are a number of unions. Will you be negotiating with all the unions, or is there a schedule for the various unions?
Ms Bourgon: There are schedules, there are bargaining tables and there have been some consolidations among the unions. Mr. Massé, the Minister in charge, would be in a better position to answer your question.
Mr. Bellemare: Is the bargaining targeted, that is does it involve senior managers, junior managers, or office staff?
Ms Bourgon: No, the bargaining is conducted with consolidated groups of unions, according to their certification, not according to the levels.
Mr. Bellemare: You spoke about new blood and renewal, and you said that plans would be coming forward and that there were deadlines in March, May or June. When will the recruitment take place?
Ms Bourgon: Once we've seen the plans, once we have integrated them, and once we know exactly what we are looking for. We don't want each department improvising.
Mr. Bellemare: If we were very optimistic, when would this be?
Ms Bourgon: We would have the departmental plans in March, a consolidation in June, and we should be ready by fall.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Ms Beaumier.
Ms Beaumier: Thank you.
I'm wondering if you give lessons, because I've so far not heard one answer to one question. It's been a lot of philosophical rhetoric on the value of the civil service, and we all agree the civil service is valuable.
Mr. Bellemare: Except for the Reform.
Ms Beaumier: Perhaps I misunderstood my first question to you. What I'm wondering is whether you have a list of the services you are considering privatizing. That's what I meant when I asked if you have decided which are core essential and which are not core essential. I didn't ask you the principles on which we decide if they fit into the category of the public service.
Ms Bourgon: On the core, you have a document produced by your government tabled by Mr. Massé on March 6, 1996, that lists the core functions. They are the five I mentioned.
Secondly, is there a list of activities that have been identified for privatization? The answer is no.
Ms Beaumier: Is there a list of departments that are looking at the possibility of privatization? I refer once again to immigration. I know individuals who are tendering to take over the immigration process. I know they have submitted their applications to the immigration department.
Ms Bourgon: I'm not aware of anything concerning the Department of Immigration. I would advise you to take that question up with the head of the organization. We could look into it for you if you like.
.1650
Ms Beaumier: But surely you know, as the director of the public sector. As the director of the public sector, are you telling me that there's not a list available to us? I'm sure there is.
Ms Bourgon: Whenever a decision was made to privatize something, it was announced in a budget. It was announced in 1995 and it was announced in 1996. There are no lists in the budget of 1997. There are no lists pulled together as it stands now.
Whether there is someone somewhere in any one of our 100 organizations who is thinking about something, I could not answer. I'm not aware of anything on immigration, but we could inquire.
The Chairman: To follow up on Ms Beaumier's question, I think what you're asking is whether there is a list of departments where consideration is being given to privatization. When it's announced in the budget, essentially the decision has been made and it's a go. Your response is that there is no list, to your knowledge.
Ms Bourgon: There is no centralized list and there is no approved list of any kind.
Can I use more than one word and try to give an explanation that you may find useful? If not, I'll remove it.
A department every year prepares a document called a business plan. Any minister and deputy working together could decide, in preparing their business plan, that they are going to ask the department if there is something that could be done better in the private sector. This is not requested in a centralized fashion; it is part of the flexibility. They have to ask themselves good, decent, solid questions. No one would know that until they had tabled their business plan.
So if there was some thinking under way in immigration, I would not know until they had tabled their business plan. Maybe there is something. I'm just trying to help you with where you could look.
Ms Beaumier: So you're saying we have to go to the different departments. It's not all coordinated.
Ms Bourgon: No.
The Chairman: I have a couple of questions, if the committee would permit me.
I know that in past testimony there has been some mention of high-level task forces examining various aspects of the future of the public service. I was wondering if the clerk could identify those task forces and when we could expect to see the results of their findings.
Ms Bourgon: They are all completed. All the reports have been sent to every department. They are publicly available. They are in our library. I would be pleased to send you a copy if that is your wish.
Let's mention some of them, the key ones I would advise you to glance through.
One was related to the issue that the gentleman raised about the policy role of the Government of Canada and how to strengthen policy capacity. A report was released a number of months ago, and by and large it is being implemented as we speak. None of them were created with the purpose of having a specific date on which you implement a master plan. They are there to make sure we are all making progress. So that was the first, and by and large most of its recommendations have been implemented by now.
Another is how to deal with horizontal issues in the future. A report has been tabled and sent to every department. Every department has been asked to implement it in a manner that is true to them and relevant to their needs.
There was one on service delivery, the other role we talked about. If you look at service delivery from the citizen's perspective, what do you learn in terms of taking an integrated approach? Again, the work was completed and sent to every department.
Regarding the overhead costs within the Government of Canada, the task force report has been tabled. The implementation is under the overall responsibility of the board, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
There is a discussion paper on values and ethics. What are the values of the past? How are they going to guide us in the future? How relevant will they be to our staff in the future? The work is completed and is being discussed in every department as we speak.
The Chairman: My sense is that the researcher has a fair bit of research to do with respect to those task force reports. I'll leave that to him.
My other question was with respect to the U.K., where Parliament established a citizen's charter for service standards. I wondered whether you had considered that approach for Canada, and if not, perhaps you could give us some idea why we are not pursuing that avenue.
Ms Bourgon: At this time we're not. We had a lot of discussion with colleagues in the U.K. to learn about what they've done. By and large they have done it for services that in Canada are basically at the provincial level - schools, hospitals and fire-fighting. They have not done it for activities like Solicitor General, policy work and foreign affairs, which are the kinds of activities you would find in our split of responsibilities at the federal level. So we learned from their experience and we took note of that.
.1655
Basically we've asked the departments to explore how they're going to establish meaningful performance indicators that are significant to their clients. Instead of having one charter for all, we're letting the departments experiment a bit.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any further questions?
Mr. Bellemare: I have a very quick one.
[Translation]
Personally, Ms Bourgon, do you think the merit principle should be reexamined?
Ms Bourgon: No, the merit principle is fundamental. What needs reviewing periodically is the meaning of this principle. When we do not talk about fundamental principles anew, we tend make them more complicated than they should be.
From time to time, we have to go back to the beginning and update our concepts. However, the merit principle is a fundamental cornerstone of the public sector.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.
Thank you, Madame Bourgon, for coming before the committee. Your testimony was very useful and will certainly impact our final report. I'm hopeful that the report we provide to you will play a role in your final deliberations as you continue your work in revitalizing the public service.
Ms Bourgon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.