[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I want to bring this meeting to order.
I have a couple of housekeeping items that I want to deal with before we get to our witnesses for the morning.
As you know, starting next week we are going to begin our examination of the private member's Bill C-224. Next Tuesday morning we will be hearing from the sponsor of the bill, Mr. John Bryden, and also from Revenue Canada and the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.
In addition, I want to tell you that we have left Thursday, May 4, open for further consideration of Bill C-224. We've had two requests for appearances, one from Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and another request for an invitation from the Canadian Society of Association Executives. We could hear both those organizations on Thursday, May 4. Your chairman is certainly inclined to extend that invitation to those two organizations. If I hear no objection to that, I will just proceed.
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): I'm not a smoker. I've never smoked. But I don't like witch-hunters. I particularly don't like people who do go on witch-hunts and buy full-page ads attacking MPs. One of them is this Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. They placed an ad, which I did not appreciate, where they attacked one of our colleagues, an MP, who was taking a great number of people to task because of their expenditures or their non-information.
The Chairman: May I interrupt for a moment, Mr. Bellemare? This particular group supports the bill.
Mr. Bellemare: Supports the bill. Isn't this the same group that attacked...?
The Chairman: I don't know which organization you're talking about.
Mr. Bellemare: My colleague, Ian, seems to want to tell me they're not the same group.
The Chairman: No, they are a different organization.
Mr. Bellemare: That's fine.
The Chairman: You haven't told us the name of the organization, but I take it that you assume this organization opposes the bill. This organization we are inviting supports the bill.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): The two groups that are coming to meet with us are lobbyists for the Non-Smokers Law. I wonder what difference this bill will make for Public Works and Government Services. What connection does this have with our work, except that we would be hearing two witnesses and generating expenses?
[English]
The Chairman: I'm not too sure what your question is, Mr. Asselin, but it wouldn't be the first time we had witnesses before this committee or any other committee who don't share our views. Sometimes I've had the experience of having witnesses who will share some rather ridiculous views.
In this particular case they've asked for an appearance, one in support, and I gather the Canadian Society of Association Executives are opposed. I don't know the grounds for their opposition. We haven't got an advance copy or text of what they might say. I can't think of any reason why we should stop them.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I think they should go to the right committee, the Standing Committee on Health.
[English]
The Chairman: The private member's bill has been referred to our committee. It is our responsibility to examine the bill - not some other committee, this one. Does that help you?
.1110
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): On the same point, Mr. Chairman, I think that this bill was not addressed to the right committee. It should have gone to Health and Welfare Canada. Why are we debating this non-smokers' bill in government operations?
The Chairman: Smoking is tangential. This has to do with a disclosure of remuneration and the disclosure of salaries, Mr. Bélair.
Mr. Bélair: I'm listening.
The Chairman: The very fact that you raise that kind of question would suggest that perhaps we should have hearings of this kind so that we become better acquainted.
So without further objection I will ask the clerk of the committee to extend the invitations to these two organizations.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Chairman, I can see where the confusion is. Has there been any thought given to any further witnesses, or do we want to see what we think after this?
The Chairman: If I can put it this way, Mr. Strahl, we will allow nature to take its course. The committee has announced its intentions, its work, and the community or the country responds accordingly. So far we have had two requests for invitations. It seems to me that if that is all, that is all.
Mr. Strahl: Okay. I'll perhaps make a phone call or two. I just think the umbrella agencies that look after charitable organizations in Canada would be interested in this bill. I'm just surprised they haven't. Maybe they're not aware of it.
The Chairman: I spoke to Mr. Shand, who wrote on behalf of the Canadian Society of Association Executives that that particular organization represents a large number. I don't know how many. Something tells me 60. That sounds like a very large number, but I recall a large number. Now that I see Mr. Bryden here, he might know more about it. But if you want to talk to one of your friends, I certainly can't stop you.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): Two things in passing. This is very much a bill that addresses the very large issue of charities and non-profits, some 120,000 of them. It is not and should not be perceived to be a bill that's directed towards any particular sector of the charity industry - certainly not smoking or non-smoking. This is something that perhaps has got into the public perception because of certain advertisements that were run recently. But the bill is much larger than that.
Second, there has been a great deal of publicity about the private member's bill. So I would think that most charitable organizations are aware of it.
Finally, I personally did spread the word, shall we say, in the charitable sector, indicating that the bill did exist and there was an opportunity to speak to it. If there are not a lot of people coming forward it is probably because there's broad support for the bill out there.
The Chairman: I hope that is all on this matter, because I would like to get to our witnesses as soon as possible, certainly out of courtesy to them.
Very quickly, I have two more things. First is the matter of transcripts or Hansard. As you know, there's a change of policy. The blues will not be distributed as in the past. If you want copies of remarks that were made you can contact PubNet. I think it takes about three days or so. If you're interested in a record of statements, conversation or whatever took place before this committee you contact PubNet. It's already in the system, but I think it takes about three days.
The Clerk of the Committee: From the date of the meeting.
The Chairman: Yes, from the date of the meeting.
One more thing is the letter from your chairman to go to Mr. Eggleton regarding contracting out. The letter, I believe, was distributed some time ago. I would think you people would have had an opportunity to look at the letter. I would hope that many, if not all, of you could sign it. If you could sign it and contact the clerk's office, she or one of her representatives will come over or make some arrangement to secure your signature on the original letter.
.1115
If for some reason you can't sign it, fine, your name will be taken off the letter. But I want this matter expedited as quickly as possible, so I'm really asking all of you to have this done one way or the other by 5 p.m.
I see Mr. Bryden's hand. He's a new member on the committee. I know he hasn't been a part of this discussion or investigation into contracting out.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have, however, availed myself of the records. I'm very interested in the issue. I've informed myself about the issue. I would like to be on the record and part of this letter.
The Chairman: Wonderful. Certainly space has been provided for your name. We'll arrange to have your signature.
The clerk has the original letter. So if you will take the opportunity of getting those signatures now.... I don't think all members of the committee are here, but we'll do what we can.
Now can we get to our witness?
I apologize profusely. I'm sorry to keep you waiting.
With us today is Ruth Hubbard, who is the president of the Public Service Commission. Accompanying her are Ginette Stewart and Alan Latourelle.
I understand you have an opening statement. Then we'll proceed from there with our usual rounds of questioning. Welcome.
Ms Ruth Hubbard (President, Public Service Commission of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will simply point out to members of the committee that Ginette Stewart is a commissioner and Alan Latourelle is the director general of finance and administration. Three other people from the Public Service Commission are here as well to help answer questions: Michel Cardinal, who is the executive director of staffing programs branch; Amelita Armit, who is the executive director of corporate management and secretary general to the commission; and Fernand Lalonde, who is the director general of appeals and investigations branch.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring you further information on the commission, on our programs and our activities and on the proposed budget presented to Parliament to support our undertakings.
[Translation]
The Public Service Commission is a politically independent agency accountable to Parliament for the administration of the Public Service Employment Act. The PSEA governs staffing in the public service and gives the Commission the exclusive authority to make appointments in all government departments and agencies that do not have a separate staffing authority under a specific legislation.
[English]
The Public Service Employment Act also enables the commission to delegate its exclusive authority to make appointments to departments and agencies. Through such delegation of its staffing authority, the commission has entrusted departments with a major role in selection and appointment. However, in view of its accountability to Parliament for ensuring merit, the commission maintains in several ways a strong presence in delegated staffing.
First of all, we develop the policies and programs that shape staffing in the Public Service. Second, we establish mechanisms for appeals against appointments. Third, we conduct investigations into complaints relating to non-appealable staffing matters, deployments and harassment in the workplace. Lastly, we monitor the conduct of delegated staffing.
Notwithstanding delegated staffing, the commission retains full authority for recruitment to and promotion within the executive group. In addition, the Public Service Employment Act provides the commission with the mandate and the means not only to maintain merit as the basis of appointment for the public service, but also to carry out employment equity programs at its discretion in order to achieve a representative public service.
In keeping with its mandate and in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Public Service Employment Act, the commission also operates and assists deputy heads in the operation of staff training and development programs in the public service.
Thus the mission of the commission is to ensure that the people of Canada are served by a highly competent Public Service that is non-partisan and representative of Canadian society.
As shown in part III of the main estimates, the commission has an annual vote of $122.5 million for 1995-96. This represents a $6.5 million reduction from 1994-95. In spite of its resource reductions, the commission will, through its own revitalization, support and nurture the change process in the public service with independent thinking and analysis, innovation and concrete initiatives. We will be a more strategic and more efficient organization as we undergo our own change process. Indeed, reductions at the Public Service Commission have been planned with a view to ensuring that the commission will still be able to carry out its mandate effectively in a leaner, more effective organization focused on future as well as current needs of the public service.
.1120
Given its mandate, the commission is uniquely positioned to identify and support the service-wide renewal requirements of the public service through all of its activities. The PSC intends to continue to play a central role in restructuring activities resulting from the program review. In the short term, the commission will achieve this by providing programs and support services for the placement of surplus and other employees having priority for appointment under the PSEA and by contributing to equitable transition mechanisms for public servants. From a longer perspective, the commission will explore effective rejuvenation strategies that will support public service renewal beyond the implementation of the program review decisions.
To assist departments in their renewal and re-engineering efforts, we will identify and provide to them the maximum flexibilities available under the Public Service Employment Act. These flexibilities include opportunities to tailor or streamline processes, depending upon the internal capabilities and capacities of departmental clients, without sacrificing the objective of a competent, representative and non-partisan public service.
On an ongoing basis, the PSC will monitor not only the level of compliance with these agreements, but also the efficiency and effectiveness of delegated staffing through evaluation and reviews, periodic assessments, audits and performance indicators.
In the area of executive resourcing, the commission has strengthened a number of its services and products to deal with the impact of reductions on the executive cadre. As well, to provide greater flexibility and increase openness, transparency and fairness, all competitions for entry at the EX-1 and EX-2 levels are now published.
In the area of recourse, the commission views its role of being an objective, fair and independent guardian of merit as crucial to the continued competence of the public service. In support of fostering a trustful environment, the PSC is in the process of exploring with other partners alternate dispute resolution models to promote faster, more efficient and cost-effective operation of the recourse system.
The number of investigation cases opened, especially those dealing with personal harassment, continues to be significant and more complex. To achieve earlier resolution of complaints and improve productivity, mechanisms such as offering mediation services, pre-hearing conferences and investigative hearings will be used more extensively in 1995-96.
[Translation]
We are committed to ensuring that the goal of a representative Public Service is not lost during this period of rapid and constant change. In 1994-95, the PSC implemented a new Special Measures Initiatives Program on behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The new program, which is a realignment and restructuring of the formal Special Measures Programs, preserves the most positive elements of the previous Special Measures Programs, while introducing new elements to respond more effectively to the rapid evolution of both the Public Service and the Canadian social environment.
Over the next three years, the PSC will ensure that the delivery of employment equity services is fully integrated with developmental et recruitment services.
[English]
Having just completed an evaluation of all external recruitment programs and initiatives, the commission will determine in 1995-96 how it can best fully intergrate the delivery of its external recruitment programs. Development and assignment programs will also be examined in 1995-96 with a view to identifying opportunities for efficiencies, as well as for integrating activities and services.
Another direction for the commission is the increased cooperation we are seeking with other levels of government. The commission will examine its activities with the provinces and territories, particularly in the areas of training and assessment, with a view to determining whether a greater collaboration could improve efficiency and effectiveness. In 1995-96 the PSC will also explore the feasibility of using PSC products and services constructively in the international arena.
The downsizing and restructuring of the public service will be one of the major challenges that public service managers and staff will face over the next three years. In the short term, one of the PSC's priorities will be to ensure fair and open processes in the management of displaced employees during the period of transition. This encompasses affected and surplus employees, as well as those who will remain in the public service.
.1125
[Translation]
The Commission will continue to review and update specific support mechanisms, such as priority placement, career counselling and outplacement networks, that have been strengthened for the upcoming reductions, including at the executive and ADM levels.
Together with the Treasury Board, we have implemented approaches for monitoring the adequacy of service-wide placement strategies and, for 1995-96, we have increased our ability and capacity to monitor the progress of employees with priority status in our Priority Administration System. Finally, complaints and appeals involving ``reverse order of merit'' and workforce adjustment issues will be given immediate attention by the Commission.
[English]
Thus, overall for 1995-96 the commission will concentrate resources in the areas of greatest need and where the commission excels, and invest resources where the PSC can provide innovative leadership. As we proceed, we will continue to realign and streamline our work and systems to reflect evolving responsibilities and new priorities for the future and look for further operational efficiencies beyond 1995-96.
We would now be happy to respond to your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you. I have just a couple of things before we turn to the first round.
Mr. Bellemare and I have to go to a luncheon at 11:45, so we're going to be leaving andMr. Duhamel will be taking the chair. Normally I would have given the chair over to the vice-chairman, Mr. Marchand, but he's not here today, so Mr. Duhamel will be taking my chair.
I understand Mr. Duhamel wants to ask some questions, so I would ask a favour ofMr. Strahl. We'll go to the Bloc first, and then I'll ask Mr. Duhamel, before he takes the chair, to ask his questions. I think Mr. Bryden wanted to ask one question, and then we'll go to you. Is that all right? I know you're a nice guy. All the British Columbians are good people.
Mr. Duhamel: It's those mountains.
The Chairman: I have one question before we go to the Bloc, and it has to do with this, Ms Hubbard. I suppose it would be quite understandable if a lot of young Canadians, university students and other young people who might have thought of having a future in the federal service took a look at what's been happening in government the last one or two years, look at the contents of the budget, notice that we're downsizing to 245,000, and say there's no future in the federal service so I'm going to go elsewhere. I would think if that became an epidemic, let's say, it could be quite serious for the federal government.
What is the Public Service Commission doing to absolutely ensure that the federal civil service is going to have the right kinds of people over the next many years? I know that some right-wing nuts would like to see the destruction of government, but I'm not one. Regardless of the size of government, government needs very good people. So what are you doing in that regard?
Ms Hubbard: A number of things. It's quite true that our recruitment from the general public, if you like, has been restricted significantly over the last several years. However, we have maintained recruitment in specialized areas.
There is some recruitment at the entry level for economists, such as the management trainee program, which is a program designed specifically to ensure that there is not only a selection of the brightest and the best who come into the public service, but that their careers are managed for the first several years through a combination of work assignments. In fact, we will have a good pool of people from which to select in the future. So we are continuing to recruit in special areas.
I think it's also true that we're putting a heavy emphasis on the fact that because the public service at the moment is a highly competent organization there are many excellent people. There are many excellent people whose jobs will be disappearing and we will be trying to place them in other jobs in the public service. There are many excellent people who will be staying. It seems to me that the overall competence of the public service, which is something that concerns us a lot at the commission, is something we expect will be maintained.
.1130
It will be tough. As a matter of fact, this week I spoke to the Forum for Young Canadians, who are in town for their week, and I encouraged them all to consider a career in the public service.
The public service of the future will be different. Their expectations of what life will be like in the public service will be different. But our experience so far suggests that we continue to have a large number of young people who are interested in working in the public service.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Laurin, you have eight minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Ms Hubbard, in your presentation you stated that the Commission will play a key role in implementing the plan for Public Service renewal. Obviously, one of its roles will be to ensure employment equity, particularly as regards the presence of women, visible minorities and aboriginals in the Public Service. How can you ensure that these minorities are better represented? Have you considered implementing special measures to protect these groups against the cuts that have been announced, cuts that will involve 45,000 jobs.
Ms Hubbard: I will try to answer in two ways. First, reductions in the Public Service are initiated by decisions, taken within a department, to stop doing something. The decision is taken to reorganize work in those areas where certain activities have been stopped. Therefore, the impact of cuts on representativeness in the Public Service is not related to downsizing decisions.
We realize that the federal Public Service has not managed to be representative enough. The representation of target groups continues to increase, but the situation is not yet satisfactory. There are special measures and special programs available. I mentioned the fact that changes have been made to the management of special measures, not only measures to attract aboriginals and representatives of target groups, but also measures to improve the atmosphere in the workplace so that the people concerned will feel comfortable when they arrive. These special measures are continuing.
It is also a fact that these people are more highly represented in term positions. It will not be easy to increase the representativeness of target groups over the next few years. But we will continue to work to ensure that we refer qualified people from target groups to positions filled by people from outside the Public Service. We will work to attain these objectives, and we are confident of doing so.
Mr. Laurin: Assuming, as you say, that it will be difficult to increase representativeness, can you at least develop procedures to ensure that representativeness is not reduced as a result of the cuts? For example, if when cuts are made you have a choice between an equally qualified man and woman, will you choose to cut the position occupied by the man, because that is what is done when someone is hired? Do you plan on using a similar procedure when a position is cut?
Ms Hubbard: The answer is no, since positions are filled in the Public Service on the basis of the merit principle. For example, if you have a group of 20 employees doing the same type of work and their number is reduced to 10, the merit principle is used.
The least qualified people leave the group, and the most qualified are kept.
.1135
Mr. Laurin: My question was this: given equal qualifications, the merit should be the same. In such a case, will you protect the person who happens to be a member of a visible minority group? That was in the hypothetical case of equal levels of qualification.
Ms Hubbard: That is a hypothetical case. The managers have to make that decision when they have to cut staff or choose someone to staff a position. Managers must consider a great many things. The most qualified person must be chosen and the person who cannot be kept on is the one who is the least qualified.
I will ask Ginette Stewart to add something.
Mr. Laurin: Before Ms Stewart intervenes, I would like to make the following comment. At present, contract employees represent about 12% of the Public Service. Of these 12%, 62% are women. If you don't have any mechanism to ensure the protection of these target groups or visible miniority groups, I fail to see how you will be able to fulfill your mandate and to maintain at least the present level of equity within the Public Service.
Ms Hubbard: It is a challenge. Ginette.
Ms Ginette Stewart (Commissioner, Public Service Commission): Mr. Chairman, the comment I wanted to make was in relation to the question put by Mr. Laurin about equal levels of qualifications.
Based on my experience in the area of human resources management, it is very very rare that two individuals have equal qualifications. Why is that so? Because we consider various elements when we assess individuals. We consider their knowledge, their education level, their experience, their skills, their personal qualities. So at the end of the day, it is very rare that we are left with two individuals having really equal qualifications. The qualifications of a person are asessed in the context of the requirements of a given position, so that the person who meets more closely the requirements of the position is normally the person who is chosen for that position.
Mr. Laurin: You know as well as I do, Ms Stewart, that in such a system, when you absolutely want to chose a specific candidate, you choose the requirements accordingly. You write the job description so that it fits more closely the qualifications of a given employee or applicant. This doesn't seem to me to be a guarantee against any patronage. When you want someone, it is easy to discriminate. It is easy to add a specific requirement, knowing that one applicant can meet that requirement while the other applicant cannot. How can you guarantee that the staffing process in the Public Service will be scrupulous and free of any patronage?
Ms Stewart: The Public Service Employment Act gives the Commission various powers, including the power to verify whether the requirements demanded by various managers are in keeping with the requirements of the position and whether there is no undue emphasis in one direction or the other. The Commission can supervise this.
As well, if a person feels that he or she has been wronged and there has been an abuse of power on the part of that person's managers, the person can ask the commission to investigate and, further down the road, the person can also appeal. There are many ways for us to control that type of situation and to prevent patronage, be it on the bureaucratic or political level.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Duhamel.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Thank you very much for your presentation. I have three questions. I'll raise them all together.
I'd like a brief description of the relationship of the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board. I think it would be useful, to me at least.
.1140
Secondly, I want to know how well we're doing in the field of employment equity. I'm a strong supporter of the system because I feel that many people have been left out as a result of systemic, attitudinal, and other barriers.
Finally - and this one may be most easily dealt with - I would like from the commission, if I'm not imposing, a brief statement saying what I could say to young people safely about what they could expect in terms of future employment opportunities, because I don't want to mislead them and I don't want to over-represent or under-represent. So perhaps the latter could be done at some subsequent date and sent to the committee. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: Although I'm very much a supporter of employment equity as well, I have to say that in my riding and among my constituents there's a lot of distress among young people, especially about the public service employment application forms, where there's a line that invites the identification of the applicant as a visible minority or of gender and that kind of thing. Have you received complaints in this regard? Secondly, is this pre-selecting or de-selecting an entire group - i.e., young, white, Anglo-Saxon males - from the recruitment process? You can either answer that now or you can answer that later.
Ms Hubbard: On the role of the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board Secretariat, let me simply say the Treasury Board Secretariat has overall responsibility for management policies and represents the employer in collective bargaining. The Public Service Commission establishes staffing criteria and has the exclusive authority to recruit and to promote and also to assist departments in training.
We exercise full authority for appointments to the senior executive level, except at the deputy minister level, and we hear appeals on appointments. We investigate allegations of personal harassment and complaints related to deployments and we audit staffing actions in departments.
There is a more detailed answer, which we'll be glad to provide, but that's roughly the difference.
About employment equity data, I'd be glad to provide some more detailed information on the current state, based on the most recent information. My recollection is there is still room to go. Our experience at the commission is that by and large we are able to refer candidates for competitive processes for consideration by managers in about the same proportions as they are in the labour market. The appointment rate or the selection of these people unfortunately isn't yet at that same rate. So we seem to be having relatively little difficulty finding qualified people to refer, but there are still some difficulties in having these people selected as the best qualified.
About a statement about future employment opportunities, I think we'd be glad to provide something you could use with your young constituents.
On the matter of application forms, I stand to be corrected by my colleagues. I'm not aware of any significant complaints from people about the questions that we ask on our application forms. The purpose of having that there, which is for people to fill out if they so wish, is certainly not for us to make judgments about who should or should not be referred. It is simply so that we can answer questions about how many people have applied relative to the labour market availability. So the one thing we try hard to be very careful to do is to focus everything we do on competence as opposed to other considerations.
Mr. Bryden: You don't feel that by asking for this data you are perhaps discouraging a certain category of a young individual from applying for the public service? Do you have any sense that it has a negative effect?
Ms Hubbard: We haven't investigated that particular concern. It hasn't been our sense that that is true. It could well be.
We do know that within the public service asking people to self-identify produces a result that is lower than the actual representation of people. People don't all feel comfortable identifying themselves as people with disabilities or as members of particular target groups. So there may be a kind of psychological effect of this, but we're not aware it has been a concern.
.1145
Mr. Bryden: Is it really necessary to ask for that information on that form for your employment equity program? Is it really necessary?
Ms Hubbard: It would be very difficult for us to answer questions about whether we have managed to design our recruitment program in such a way to be of interest to people who belong to employment equity groups. We need to have some way of figuring out what a good job we're doing. So we're caught a bit on the horns of a dilemma.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Perhaps we could come back to that later, if it's important to the member. We have roughly two minutes in this round and I'd invite Mr. Bellemare, who I believe has to leave early, if he has any questions to raise.
Mr. Bellemare: Harassment is a big issue in my riding, my riding being probably the largest riding of public service employees in Canada. I find that more and more I'm getting cases of two types of harassment here. One is the pre-45,000 employee notification that jobs would be transferred or programs cut, harassment within that group. Then there was harassment that occurred prior to the decision of the government to remove 45,000 positions from its payroll and transfer it to mostly the private sector.
When it comes to the pre-decision of the budget you have a lot of cases of harassment. All of them, I suspect, are really a tool used by some managers - not all managers, just some managers - to get rid of people, and they use that as a point of driving people nuts. The first thing you know is they are sick and they are out. Then they complain, and obviously they're on the road of leaving the public service.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Can I have someone comment on that? I take it that Mr. Bellemare says there are positive and other features to the current policy. Do we have any evidence to that effect?
Ms Hubbard: It's certainly true that our experience suggests the number of harassment complaints we've been getting has been going up and that the complexity of looking into those complaints has been increasing. We've been working hard at our end to try to make sure that we have ways of dealing with these complaints early. Sometimes it's a question of mis-communication, and we're finding that inviting both parties to explain to the other exactly what their allegation is improves things.
There's no doubt that as the environment becomes more difficult, as people become faced with more uncertainty, one of the outcomes is there seems to be an increased perception they're being treated unfairly, and possibly on the part of people with power there is an inappropriate use of that power. We don't have evidence, I don't think, to suggest that this kind of complaint is increasing by leaps and bounds, but we certainly expect that it is likely to come up.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Clarification may help. Is there not a new policy initiative on the part of the Treasury Board Secretariat in this particular area, as well as refined procedures in order to deal with the whole issue in a much more effective, sensitive, sensible way?
Ms Hubbard: The President of the Treasury Board has announced that he is in the process of reviewing the harassment policy. He has made some first changes and is in the process of considering what other changes he might make.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Thank you very much. I believe it's my colleague Mr. Strahl's turn.
Mr. Strahl: On page 17 of your estimates you have a statement in there that says employment equity in the federal workforce will remain a priority until target group representation comes in line with the representation in the labour force.
I have a couple of questions. One is you just identified one of the problems, which is that people often refuse to self-identify. According to the employment equity report from Treasury Board this year, they say the numbers for visible minorities actually shown on the statistics may be out by as much as 50% and disabled people may be out by as much as 2.5 times. That's according to the Treasury Board. How will you know when the representation comes in line with the representation in the labour force if, according to Treasury Board, we can be out by that much?
.1150
Ms Hubbard: It is, as you say, a difficult issue, and it isn't entirely clear how one can determine once and for all what the actual representation is. As long as we are seeing a significant difference between the percentage of qualified people from target groups we refer for consideration, which is quite different from the number that gets selected, you would think on average, if the system were working well, if a particular group was represented, in terms of labour market availability at 5%, and if we were to refer a list of people from this labour pool, about 5% of the group we refer should belong to that group. You would think over a period of time about 5% of them ought to be selected. To the extent those numbers are not close, there certainly is at least some suggestion we don't have a workplace environment that is quite as fair and sensitive to employment equity considerations as we might have.
It's not an easy question to answer.
Mr. Strahl: If you were convinced it was approaching target group representation, was in line with the representation in the labour force, do you think employment equity programs, when that is shown, should be eliminated or cut out?
Ms Hubbard: I think the aim of employment equity programs is to make sure members of employment equity groups have equal access and historical imbalances have been addressed. Ultimately, it is certainly true that if our workplaces are as sensitive as they can be to different genders, different cultures, different ways of doing things, different approaches, then we will be living in a workplace environment that is fair to everybody.
We're certainly proposing, as part of the program review, to put more onus on departments integrating employment equity considerations into their own recruitment and development initiatives, as opposed to us trying to push them as much from the centre. One of the changes we've made to the special measures program as part of our study of what worked well in the past is to encourage departments to match investments. So we have funds in the special measures program, which we offer to departments when they come up with innovative ideas to improve their workplace, not just in recruiting people, but in training or in workshop sessions, whatever seems to make sense.
So we are working to try to make these employment equity considerations part of good management and part of a good workplace.
Mr. Strahl: The Economic Council of Canada says by the year 2003, which is not that far off, 85% of the people applying for jobs will be from designated groups - 85%. Given that the vast majority of people will be applying from designated groups, leaving a very small minority of 15% that is from non-designated groups, do you think it's necessary to...? It just seems to me we're inevitably, and properly and hopefully, going to see a more representative workforce because of that statistic alone. That's just going to be a fact.
Given the fact we don't really know how many people are represented - Treasury Board are not sure, and we could be out by two and a half times, which is a significant number - and given that 85% will be from employment equity groups, aren't we spending a lot of money on what may be a self-correcting situation? Isn't it going to come along that these qualified people from the designated groups are going to dominate all job applications just because of the demographics?
Ms Hubbard: The demographics will certainly have an impact on what we would expect to see, but it seems to me that until our workplaces are entirely free of the biases that have existed for some while, which we are all working hard to remove, this is not a problem that's going to disappear overnight.
.1155
I would think we are making progress. The progress is slow. In an era of downsizing, it is going to continue to be a challenge. Am I hopeful we're going to continue to make improvements? Yes. Is the problem going to go away? Not in the foreseeable future, in my view.
Mr. Strahl: You mentioned two things you wanted to ensure under employment equity: you wanted to ensure equal access for all Canadians and you wanted to address historical imbalances. To me those are almost diametrically opposed goals. One is to say I will take your application, address it on its merit, and make sure you have equal access. I think somebody on the other side raised the question - some people in his riding have raised the question - of ensuring equal access for all people, especially in what should be a model employer, which is the federal civil service. However, if your goal is also to restore historical imbalances, the two may not be always compatible. It may be there will be some times and some roles where it's not possible to have an exactly representative civil service at all levels, in all categories and at all times. There are going to be some fluctuations. I just wonder if the two goals are compatible - equal access and restoring historical imbalances.
Ms Hubbard: I don't see them as being incompatible. Whereas the goal of making sure there is equal access is an important and fundamental one, it is also true there have been historical imbalances. If one were to wait for the period of time it might take after true equal access existed, one might have to wait for a long time for nature to correct itself. So I don't see them as being particularly incompatible. We do work on both of them.
Mr. Strahl: I guess the question that would be raised by people applying for jobs today is they would say they can see historically there have been some imbalances and they can even see where there has been systemic discrimination and why we need to remove those barriers to systemic discrimination. However, somebody applying today who's 20 years old and has worked hard to qualify in a very tight job market would also argue they've never been part of that, never took part in that: I regret it and I wish it had never happened, but you're punishing me or limiting my options because of the actions of my grandfather or my father, and I wish you wouldn't do that.
Ms Hubbard: The data I have seen certainly would suggest that people who are not members of target groups are still successful in entering the public service and moving through its ranks at a rate that is at least proportional to their availability in the labour market. So it would suggest that on the ground there does not seem to be a significant disadvantage to groups who are not target group members.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Perhaps to finish this point off before I go to my colleagues in the Bloc, is there reverse discrimination? There's a lot of misinformation out there and there's a lot of emotionalism tied to those particular issues. What are some of the myths, just briefly? Are there myths?
Ms Hubbard: I think there are always myths. There's a perception that people who are not members of target groups in fact don't have opportunities in the public service.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): That is correct or incorrect?
Ms Hubbard: That is not correct. I don't have the data at hand, but the last information I saw suggested that people who are not members of groups are still receiving a healthy proportion of the opportunities in the public service.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Is there reverse discrimination?
Ms Hubbard: Reverse discrimination. I would say the answer is no.
Now, if I were a white male and if I had wanted to join the public service 40 years ago, I might have expected that I would aspire to 95% of the opportunities that were available in the public service. It may be true that in the future, as I think it is slightly under 50% of the labour market, I might only be able to aspire to that proportion - 45%, 46%, 42%, whatever percentage that is. Is that reverse discrimination? I'm not so sure it would be.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin.
.1200
Mr. Asselin: First of all, I would like some information on the 45,000 public servants who will be laid off over the next three years. How many of them will end up on UI? Will the result be increase in contracting out, because there are fewer permanent employees?
As for the 45,000 public servants, how many of their positions have been declared surplus? We know that some have opted for early retirement, but there are some people in the Public Service, as we speak, whose positions have been officially declared surplus.
Of these 45,000 public servants, there are people who have been trained by the government, according to their career plan, who have a certain number of years of service and who have obtained promotions in various fields. They pursued this training throughout their career in the public service. Today, their positions are being declared surplus and they will be reassigned to a new job which will require additional training.
You have to fill bilingual positions, resolve the problem of pay equity among men and women, as my colleague Mr. Laurin mentioned, as well as the problem of standards for disabled people and cultural communities if you do not want to be accused of being racist. These are the criteria you will have to take into account during the layoffs, while maintaining a certain quality of service.
I would like to tell you about a woman in my riding who has been working for Canada Post for 20 years. She was originally hired as a secretary. She was later promoted to senior clerk. Now, her position has been declared surplus. So she has applied for a position as a mail clerk. She weighs about 100 pounds, and using a fork lift, she moves incoming and outgoing mail. She does this without training and without knowledge of the work to be done, which could cause work-related accidents or other problems. But her position was declared surplus and she had to apply for this position.
Here is one last question. You talk about a spirit of transparency and objectivity: ``As for the selection process, we will now publish all competititions for EX-1 and EX-2 positions.'' You take the time to specify: ``we will now publish''. Does that mean that they were not published in the past? You talk about EX-1 and EX-2 competititions, but what about the others?
Ms Hubbard: Your first question dealt with the 45,000 positions that will be declared surplus; this also includes positions that are not covered by the Public Service Employment Act, such as positions in the military. Of the 45,000 positions, we anticipate that 33,000 of them will fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
The Treasury Board estimates that between 13,000 and 15,000 people will opt for the early departure incentive. It also estimates that another 4,000 people will probably opt for the other special initiative, early retirement. Of the 33,000 employees, 6,000 belong to a special air navigation group at the Department of Transport, which will probably be transfered to a Crown corporation.
.1205
Therefore, according to all these calculations, the number of people wishing to leave or to get their name on a waiting list for another position should be between 8,000 and 10,000 over the next three years.
Based on past experience, we redeploy about 3,000 employees each year. If you look at these figures as an average, it is not much of a challenge, if these assumptions hold up, unless you view those figures globally. But in some regions, in some communities, for the individual, it could be a challenge. It could also be a challenge for some groups, for example, those in a scientific field. It might be difficult to find other positions for them if a large number of their positions are eliminated from the Public Service.
It is impossible to predict today how many people will be affected. According to our figures as of March 31, 1995, about 2,000 positions have been declared surplus. The official figure is 2,142.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Unfortunately, Ms Hubbard, our time is up.
Ms Hubbard: I'm sorry. I could send a written answer to the other questions the member asked.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): Ms Hubbard, you have already mentioned that the commission has exclusive authority on appointments within the public service, and I want to know specifically at the executive level.
One concern that has been raised with me by constituents as a result of the significant downsizing we're facing is the fear that senior executives will take care of themselves and it will be the lower levels of the public service that will bear the brunt of the lay-offs.
Because you do have this authority, although as you mentioned you delegate a lot of it to the departments, are you playing any kind of oversight role to ensure that there will be fairness there, that senior executives can't look after themselves or their friends at the expense of others at lower levels in the public service?
Ms Hubbard: If you're asking whether or not at the Public Service Commission we're going to be taking some responsibility to ensure that a reduction takes place proportionately among the executives as opposed to those who are not at the executive level, the answer is that's something that the employer, the Treasury Board Secretariat on behalf of the employer, is quite interested in watching. It is not something that we at the commission would do.
Having said that, we are in the business of both staffing positions at the executive level and placing displaced executives. So we will have information over time about what is going on in terms of the executive population and in terms of the population at large. We will be in a position to learn some and to monitor a bit, but certainly it is not within our mandate to tell departments how to reduce. To go back to a point I made earlier, the decision to reduce is based on a discontinuance of work and how managers want to organize the work to continue.
It is an issue that public servants consider important. It is an issue that the Treasury Board Secretariat certainly is concerned about and is interested in keeping an eye on, and we'll be helping them in terms of information.
Mr. Murray: Perhaps I have misunderstood your responsibilities there. Again, under the Public Service Employment Act you have exclusive authority to make appointments to, or from within, the public service. Now at some point you no longer have that authority within the departments once you have delegated responsibility?
Ms Hubbard: No, but if a manager in a department were faced with implementing the program review decisions, it would be for the deputy minister and the senior managers to decide what that translated into and how work was going to be done. It would be for the deputy minister to make a judgment about how many executives would be needed and how the organization needed to be rearranged in order to execute those new responsibilities. When they had taken a decision, if they reduced the ranks that would leave some executives who needed placing and then we would be involved in helping them. If they restructured and created new jobs, we would be in the business of helping refer qualified people to fill those jobs. So it's a bit of a partnership.
.1210
Mr. Murray: Now I understand.
In terms of looking at restructuring government, I think you talked about effective rejuvenation strategies within the public service. I'm not sure if you mean by this looking at the same sorts of things that perhaps Public Service 2000 was looking at. Who is doing the deep thinking on restructuring activities? Is it being done within the commission or is that something the Privy Council Office is doing? Where does the responsibility lie for that rejuvenation process?
Ms Hubbard: It is an issue of interest to several central agency players. It's of interest to the Privy Council Office, to the clerk as the head of the public service, the Treasury Board Secretariat as the central agency that supports the Treasury Board ministers, the employer. It's of interest to us because our mission is to make sure there is a highly competent representative public service. It is of interest to the Canadian Centre for Management Development, which does the training for executives.
One would start by asking what is the role of government. That is clearly a decision for the government to take. One would then say, well, what competencies does one need to execute those roles? That's where we would be most interested, in the question of competencies. We would be saying we are convinced that there are certain skills we could point to now that we think are going to be more important in the future.
Mr. Murray: Before I run out of time, I want to ask you one quick question. You mentioned you are looking at special areas of recruitment. Again, we've spoken to high school students, who are always asking what they should be studying because there don't seem to be any jobs out there once they have completed their education. You mentioned there are special areas. I would like to put you on the spot by asking if you can identify for us now some of the special areas the government is looking at in terms of recruitment. Can you identify that?
Ms Hubbard: There are specific skills that we don't have. We don't have as many specialized skills in the informatics area as we would like to have, for example. We are always looking for highly qualified economists coming out of universities. We are looking for people who will be good candidates for the management trainee program. These are people with post-graduate education in public administration. We're looking at recruiting statisticians. Those are the kinds of things.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): I'll bet that will be part of that letter you're going to share with us.
Ms Hubbard: I'd be glad to.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Thank you. I'm sorry to be cutting you off, but we are running out of time.
Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: To follow up on the recruitment, I see on page 25 of the estimates that the commissioner is going to spend about $9.5 million on external recruitment. How many people do they hope to recruit? Maybe that's on the next page or two. How many people do you expect to recruit externally through the Public Service Commission?
Ms Hubbard: Let me explain what external recruitment investment consists of. It consists of the administration, certainly, of the recruitment program but it also accounts for the costs of operating some of these specialized recruitment programs that were referred to a minute ago, such as the economist recruitment program and the management trainee program. So we not only provide the administration too, but we provide the pot of money, if you like, that is used to recruit and manage those on behalf of the system.
It is a significant investment in terms of the numbers of people. If next year is like last year, we made a little over 2,400 appointments to indeterminate positions from outside the public service and about 23,000 term appointments, appointments for specified periods. In terms of the numbers of people we recruit through our special post-secondary recruitment programs, the numbers are really relatively small - I would think altogether not more than a couple of hundred.
Mr. Strahl: When I look here, I see that the actual figure on external recruitment in 1993-94 was just over $8 million. We're actually up a significant amount, 15% to 20% from 1993-94 to today, but I would think that the numbers we are recruiting are down. I don't know, but if we're laying off 45,000 people, we must be recruiting less than we used to. So why would that particular figure go up when we're recruiting fewer people?
.1215
Ms Hubbard: I don't have a good explanation for that. Let me turn to my colleagues and see. Michel Cardinal, who's the executive director of the staffing programs, may be able to answer your question better. Otherwise it's something we'll have to get back to you on.
Mr. Michel Cardinal (Executive Director, Staffing Programs, Public Service Commission): Just quickly, those 98 are not positions for which we have recruiting officers. Of the 98, 42 would represent staff. The balance would be what we call the use of salary dollars for the assignment of management trainees or for using accelerated economists on assignments, whether in central agencies or in small organizations. For instance, for small organizations who cannot afford to pay for the use of a management trainee to develop, there's a special fund. I'd say that of the 98, roughly 56 are in a special fund for the purpose of placing people on assignments. So that's an operational use of funds.
Mr. Strahl: Why would this figure have gone up over the last year or two? It's up significantly, at least from 1993-94.
Mr. Cardinal: Yes, I know. The difference is an estimate of about $1.3 million, and I think the difference between 1993-94 and 1995-96 may be that there are more moneys set aside for assignments to small agencies. As you know, because there is less recruitment we have streamlined the operations, and in order to facilitate the placement of the people we bring in through special recruitment programs we use the funds for assignment purposes.
Mr. Strahl: On page 5 of your speech you mention that you have just completed an evaluation of all external recruitment programs and initiatives. Then you will determine in 1995-96, during this budgetary year, how it can best fully integrate the delivery of these programs and so on. Is that evaluation of external recruitment programs a public document?
Ms Hubbard: I expect it is, but I'd be glad to inquire and make it available.
Mr. Strahl: I would appreciate having a look at that, if it is available. I'm just wondering how you know for sure what you'd need for money there if you are fully integrating the delivery of these external recruitment programs during this budgetary year. How do we know for sure what we're going to spend on it if we're going to integrate it into something else?
Ms Hubbard: I think the point that is intended by the remark about integrating it is among external recruitments - At the moment we have different campaigns for the economists and for the statisticians for management trainees. It seems obvious to us that if we could find a way to get these departments together with us - and we do this for different departments - and say let's just go once to the campuses and let's do all of our recruitment on the same trip, we can reduce the cost of administration. The bulk of this proposed vote is not for the administration of the program; it's for the salaries of the participants.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Colleagues, I'm sorry, but we've run out of time. We've now reached the third round and I just want to alert people that the order I've been given is my colleague Ms Brushett, Mr. Laurin, Mr. Bélair, and Mr. Strahl if he wants a final round.
Mrs. Brushett (Cumberland - Colchester): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief; I have only two questions.
From the press I understand the ACOA organization in the Atlantic is looking for a new chief. Under your direction, will you choose specifically from within the ranks? At what point do you turn outside the ranks, or does it ever become open to public citizens to apply for this job?
Ms Hubbard: The position of the president of ACOA is in fact an Order in Council appointment, so it is a position that is made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the government of the day. It is a deputy head position, so it is not a position that falls under the purview of the Public Service Commission. If there were to be an appointment there below that level, at the senior levels in the public service, for example, those would be appointments where we would have the exclusive authority to appoint.
.1220
It has been our practice over the past number of years not to recruit for those jobs from the outside, the theory being that by and large recruitment into a professional career public service, which is what it has been for many decades, is at the entry level. It isn't true to 100%, of course. There have been capable people brought into the public service.
What the employment patterns should be for the future public service is obviously a question. When young people join the labour market today, the experts tell us they can forward to seven careers in their lifetime instead of one. The world of work is certainly very different from 1963, when I joined.
Mrs. Brushett: I think that's the point, that you see it as a promotion within forever, one career in a lifetime, and the world outside must make all these adjustments today. This gives a little discretion in the two between the public service and the private sector. Thank you for your answer on that.
My second point is, as we downsize and as we move senior management positions about, there are cases where senior managers have been brought in to take over from an existing manager and the existing manager chooses not to leave because of family and community reasons. So he takes a little lesser salary but stays in the job with the new manager transferred in. The human element there becomes almost unbearable. How are we addressing that in this downsizing? I already know of situations that are very severe.
Ms Hubbard: If I understand the example you're raising, it would be of a public servant who decided, having considered the alternatives, that staying in the public service was important to them and in order to stay in a particular geographic area they would be willing to take a job at a lower level rather than accept a position at the level at which they're being paid but having to move to a different part of the country. That would be the case only when the person's job had in fact disappeared.
If a reorganization of that area of responsibility meant that a different senior-level job was created and somebody came in, it certainly could be difficult. But those are the individual decisions public servants need to consider when they make choices about whether they want to stay in the public service if their job were to disappear.
Mrs. Brushett: But I think the problem that occurs is the human element here. The original senior manager chose to stay. He took the lessor salary but he didn't want to give up the managerial profile. So you'd have two people trying to act as managers, with great problems.
Ms Hubbard: There are going to be all kinds of difficulties because we have human beings in our workplace. To restate the point I was making earlier about what we see as an in increase in complaints, as the workplace becomes more stressed and as people in a human way don't deal as perfectly with the reality they face as perhaps we would like them to, these complaints are going to manifest themselves in difficult relations in difficult environments.
How is it being dealt with? I would hope that managers are going to be trying to create a climate that is as open and provides as much support as possible so people can understand and face these realities and acknowledge that they're not necessarily going to feel as comfortable, that people aren't necessarily going to behave perfectly and that there are redress avenues.
But you're right, this is a very difficult time for public servants, many of whom joined the public service with the idea that as long as they came to work every day, did a good job, did what people asked of them, they would have a job until they decided to leave. That reality has changed.
So, yes, you're right, there are things that can be done about it, but one cannot prescribe and one cannot control human behaviour. One can only try to create a climate that understands that some of this is going on.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I have two questions. In fact, I have several, but I will begin with two. I hope you can give me short answers. Personally, I have trouble reconciling the fact that you delegate staffing to certain departments and the principle of employment equity.
If the department decides who to hire and who to fire, how can you ensure that the principle of equity will be respected? And how can you be sure that the activities were really discontinued and that the department is not going to give the work done by the laid-off employees to subcontractors instead? How? What means do you have to monitor this and what is your reaction to this situation?
.1225
Mrs. Hubbard: The delegation agreements are a form of monitoring. We negotiate with each department and we decide what requirements or performance measures will prove to the Deputy Minister and the Commission that the delegated powers are managed properly to safeguard merit.
We start with monitoring and awareness activities which clearly explain the expectations of the members of the Commission and others.
Secondly, there are remedies. If someone feels that the system has not been managed correctly and fairly, he or she can request an investigation or launch an appeal. There is a lot more to it than that, but I do not want to take too much time to explain it. Ginette Stewart may have something to add.
Mrs. Stewart: The delegation agreement is a form of partnership between the departments and the Public Service Commission. This partnership is based on shared values. In other words, applying the merit principle is not the exclusive responsibility of the Commission; it is also the responsibility of every department that wishes to engage in staffing actions. We want the merit principle to be applied throughout the Public Service. It is the basis of our delegation agreements with the various departments.
Although the departments are very involved in staffing operations, the Public Service Commission is present at every step of the process, from the beginning to the end, as Mrs. Hubbard said. Let me explain.
It is present at the beginning of the process. In order to ensure that there is no abuse and that the departments are well prepared to assume their staffing responsibilities, the commission develops policies and standards, and trains the people who are responsible for carrying out the staffing operations.
The Commission is responsible for monitoring the process throughout and it encourages departments to ensure that their internal staffing actions are followed up on. It also develops objective measures and evaluation and selection of tools for use by the department.
It is also present at the end of the process with a variety of mechanisms for verification, remedies and potential investigations. As you can see, the Commission is present at all stages, even though we have entered into a delegation agreement with the departments.
Mr. Laurin: I would have liked to pursue this topic, but I will come back to it later.
Concerning appeals, since that so many public servants will be laid off, I imagine that you must expect an increased number of appeals. However, on page 39 of the Estimates, you foresee a decrease in the budget for this purpose. How can you handle more complaints with less money?
Mrs. Hubbard: The fact is that we had predicted an increase and that we knew that it would be impossible to commit additional resources. We aked members of the Commission the following question: ``Is there a more cost-effective way of doing the work?''
.1230
Is early intervention possible? I mean, before an appeal is filed or an investigation requested, to foster dialogue between the parties and find a resolution before the formal process, which is so cumbersome, is triggered? We looked at avenues for streamlining, making changes and improving productivity, and we reduced the number of days between the filing of the appeal or the investigation and when a decision is handed down. This involved a lot of innovations. We are satisfied that, with this, we can provide better service at a lower cost.
Mr. Laurin: Do I have time to ask another question?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): No, because we have already gone over our time.
Mr. Laurin: Will we have a fourth round?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): I am in your hands.
Mr. Strahl.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: On page 27 of the estimates in the English version, figure 7 talks about the special measures initiatives program. I notice that in the write-up previous to that they talk also about the special measures innovations fund. Although it's not broken down in here, we did talk to officials within PSC that gave us some dollar figures for the special measures initiatives program. The figures I have here are for 1995-96. It would be about $15.3 million. For 1996-97 it is $15.6 million. In 1997-98 it drops to $11 million on this four-year program.
Is the special measures innovations fund part of the global budget of the special measures initiatives program?
Ms Hubbard: Yes.
Mr. Strahl: So that is part and parcel.
I have a couple of concerns. One is that the section that goes underneath figure 7 talks about the participants who completed the programs for the four categories. This used to be called the employment equity program. In 1992-93, if you look at the figures over here, for instance, for aboriginal people, about 80% or 90% of the people participating in the program completed it, but this year we're projecting only 50% completion. It goes right down the line. For example, visible minorities 75% - this year we're looking at maybe 50% completing the program. Only six women are anticipated to complete this program this year.
First of all, I'm wondering why the figures are decreasing. Why have they decreased over time? I'm talking about percentage completed. Overall, of course, the numbers are down, but why are fewer people completing the programs?
Ms Hubbard: I'll ask Michel Cardinal to provide a detailed explanation. You may recall that as a result of a review we've changed the program and we are now focusing more on measures that provide a work environment that is likely to retain these employees.
One of the things we discovered when we did a study of the programs as they were before was we had relatively little difficulty attracting them, but they didn't stay. So what we're trying to do now is to continue to attract some, but spend more of our resources on working with departments. So the special measures initiatives fund, which has gone up, is this amount that I referred to earlier where we cost-share with departments.
So we're trying to get departments to ante up resources as well, to focus on new initiatives not only to attract employment equity members into the public service but then to do things that will make it easier for them to feel as if they belong and then they stay.
I'll perhaps ask Michel Cardinal if he has more details to answer your specific question about the percentages completed.
Mr. Cardinal: I guess there are three reasons. We want those programs to run on the basis that we can make indeterminate appointments. That is not always the case. Quite often we have term appointments in order to encourage people to participate in the program and eventually get appointed. Some of these people leave after maybe six months; things do not work out. So there is a drop-out rate.
It's difficult to reflect these figures as cumulative, as you compare from one year to the other. We've said there are people in the second year, for instance, who have completed the program. They may have been in the program for a year and a half. So it's as if the numbers should add up.
.1235
If you look at two years, you can say maybe instead of having 108 people in one year having completed the program, some of them may have been from the previous year, and some in that program will complete the program next year. We like to run on a 12-month cycle, but sometimes we make arrangements that it's more than 12 months.
Mr. Strahl: This is my final comment, and I have asked this question before. I am told that we can't break out from estimates what we're spending on employment equity per se, that it's just not possible. But on this particular program, which is an employment equity program, it seems there's something wrong when we spend $15 million and the projected number of women to complete the program this year will be six. It seems like a lot of money compared to what we're accomplishing. If this initiative is only affecting six women, that's just not enough bang for our buck. I need to know why the figures are so low and the amount spent is so high.
Ms Hubbard: I would be glad to provide you with supplementary information to describe the detailed components of the program, so that you will be able to understand how it has changed over time and what is forecast in terms of the nature of the activities that we foresee in 1995-96.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): That would be appreciated.
Before we go on, I want to make sure that I am clued in here. When my colleague says that six women have completed the program, for example, that's but one part. There are others who have completed the program.
Mr. Strahl: I'm just taking the figures out of this book.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Yes. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same wavelength.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: My next question deals with the provision of services in French in federal locations. On page 43 of the Estimates, how do you account for the $1.2 million decrease in appropriations for language training when you know that French is involved nine times out of ten? Do you feel that this cut will make the low status of French outside Quebec even worse?
For instance, is it true that someone from the middle of Canada can go on a two-day French course at Le Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean and that the Canadian taxpayer must pay for his airfaire to Montreal, the cab fare from Montreal to the College, accommodation and meals on top of tuition? What do you say?
Ms. Hubbard: The first question deals with resources invested in language training. This is statutory spending. This happens when a manager decides that a position requires a bilingual employee but, in his view, the employee need not be bilingual from day one because it is possible to find other ways of providing bilingual service. This is non-imperative staffing.
This means a unilingual person is eligible and, if selected, he or she will have two years of training to become bilingual.
.1240
Mr. Laurin: That is in the other provinces, because, in Quebec, it would be unthinkable.
Mrs. Hubbard: Yes, that's true. Money is spent for unilingual people to learn English in order to fill bilingual positions in Quebec. In the vast majority of cases, that occurs in the bilingual regions of Canada, outside Quebec.
Mr. Laurin: In other words, to be hired, you can be a unilingual anglophone in other provinces, but in Quebec, you have to already be bilingual.
Mrs. Hubbard: No, my comment wasn't clear. The manager must provide bilingual service, but he can decide that it is possible to provide bilingual service and fill the position by hiring a unilingual person who can take French courses. This person will be in a position to provide service in both languages after his or her training.
Why are resources decreasing? Because more and more managers want positions to be staffed on an imperative basis. That means that the manager decides that he or she wants to have a person who is bilingual at a certain level from the outset. That is why the number of students knocking at our door continues to drop. However, of the students who want to improve their skills in the other language, most want to improve their French for personal reasons, not in order to fill a position, but simply to improve their skills. The number of students requesting that type of service is increasing. The combined effect is that we will see a slight decrease of roughly five people per year in the future.
This is not linked to the bilingual services that are provided in federal offices throughout the country. It is a question of training for people who do not have the ability to work in both languages.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): My dear colleague, you ask such profound questions that we have already exceeded the time limit.
Mr. Laurin: The other question had already been asked. It wasn't profound, but it was very clear. It dealt with the two-day courses.
Mrs. Hubbard: There are a lot of students who live near the Collège militaire royal de St-Jean.
Mr. Laurin: Those students do not go by plane, Madam.
Mrs. Hubbard: A manager who requests a training course for his or her employees must pay the travel expenses. At present, budgets for all government departments are decreasing. I do not think that there are many managers who want to spend a lot of money to send one person to take a two-day course. It is very costly and they do not have the money. I suppose that most students...
Mr. Laurin: Mrs. Hubbard, the case I'm submitting to you is not hypothetical, it is very real. A person must fly and take a cab to get to St-Jean for a two-day course and taxpayers are footing the entire bill: accommodation, food, the plane, the taxi, etc. Are you aware of this? If yes, does this seem reasonable to you?
Mrs. Hubbard: No, it is not reasonable. There are many things in a very complex system.
Mr. Laurin: Can you intervene in similar cases?
Mrs. Hubbard: It is a question of the judgement of the manager who approved the expenses. It is not up to the Public Service Commission to tell managers...
Mr. Laurin: It is not taken from your budget?
Mrs. Hubbard: No.
Mr. Laurin: Language training is not paid out of your budget?
Mrs. Hubbard: Language training includes training costs, but travel expenses are the responsibility of the department.
Mr. Laurin: We would have to question the department.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): The intervention of another body would be necessary.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I have a brief question. I'm sorry I didn't get to finish this before.
If the special measures initiatives program is decreasing in budget while the increase is slightly projected for next year and then drops considerably down to $11 million for 1997-98, why is that? Why would that projected drop happen?
.1245
Ms Hubbard: I shouldn't speculate, but I'll speculate and then ask my colleagues to help me if I'm speculating incorrectly.
I would assume that first of all the funding for this program has probably only been approved for a specified period of time. And secondly, over time, as we discussed earlier, the need for special incentives in order to make employment equity work better ought to be diminishing. The combination of those two things would be one explanation of why the forecast expenditures are going down.
I see people are nodding. That means I speculated correctly.
Mr. Strahl: That must have sounded good. I can't review the blues, so I don't know whether it was really good or not.
You're trying to integrate your recruitment and your special measures and so on with each of the departments - that seems to be kind of an initiative. The departments must do their own developing, their own training, their own recruitment and make efforts in retaining employees. They all have their own individual programs as well. As I indicated, the numbers are going down in this other program over the next three years.
I guess the question is are you working your way out of a job? Is there still going to be the crying need for the Public Service Commission? If the attempt is really to integrate these programs, I would think a big department like Fisheries, with thousands of employees, must have just about as good a program and initiatives as you do. So why would we want to spend $100 million on the Public Service Commission in general? Why don't we phase the thing out?
Ms Hubbard: Well, it's certainly an interesting question for parliamentarians to consider. The Public Service Commission exists to provide an independent organization that safeguards merit in the public service and is an integral part of an international Canadian reputation of having a highly qualified, professional public service.
The reason for establishing the Public Service Commission goes back to 1908, and its modern format goes back to a little later than that. That's a long time. Most of the resources invested in us are in fact for things related to the long-term future and competence.
So I think the question for parliamentarians is whether it is still appropriate for the future to imagine a highly competent, non-partisan, representative public service in some form or another. If so, is it considered important to have an independent agency that safeguards that? That's separate from the question of something special like employment equity, which would presumably disappear over time as departments do a better job and as demographics begin to take hold.
Mr. Strahl: I have a last point, Mr. Chairman. I'm not advocating the abolition of the PSC.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): I'm getting a little nervous; my colleague's language is getting strong.
Mr. Strahl: No, it's just that it's always interesting to ask someone to justify the commission. I would like to hear that argument. So thank you. I would just reserve the right to perhaps make a motion to the estimates, not today but at a future meeting.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): Yes. Is that it, then, Mr. Strahl?
Mr. Strahl: That's all, thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I would like to ask the Commission what tools it has to assess what the departments are doing in terms of merit.
Mrs. Hubbard: There are several ways of doing it but we're working on a precise written answer which we will send to the members of the committee.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): It would be appreciated. It is a very important point.
Mr. Laurin: The answer was also brief.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Duhamel): The question I'd asked before is for a brief statement to our colleagues with respect to employment and career employment opportunities for young people in the future.
[Translation]
This being said, Mrs. Hubbard, Mrs. Stewart, Mr. Latourelle and other officials, thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.