Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance

Issue 16 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 12, 2005

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-8, to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act, met this day at 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Joseph A. Day ( Deputy Chairman ) in the chair.

[ English ]

The Deputy Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order. This is the 20th meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Our chairman, Senator Oliver, is out of the country on Senate business and has asked me to stand in for him.

I would remind the committee that our field of interest is government spending, either directly through the estimates or indirectly through various government bills.

[ Translation ]

On March 21, Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act was referred to our committee by the Senate.

[ English ]

Our witnesses this morning are from the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency — Mr. Jean-Claude Dumesnil, director general, strategic planning, and Ms. Mylène Bouzigon, senior general counsel.

I understand that Mr. Dumesnil has some introductory remarks with respect to Bill C-8.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Jean-Claude Dumesnil, Director General, Strategic Planning, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency: Mr. Deputy-Chair, I am accompanied today by Ms. Mylène Bouzigon, Senior General Counsel, Treasury Board Legal Service Unit. We are acting on behalf of Monique Boudrias, Executive Vice-President of the Agency, who apologizes for her absence as she is out of the country for professional commitments. However, she indicated that she will be pleased, upon her return on April 18, to meet with the members of this committee if they have additional questions for her.

The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada was created by orders in council as a result of the government reorganization that took place on December 12, 2003. One of the goals of this change was to modernize and foster ongoing excellence in human resources management and leadership across the public service. The purpose of Bill C-8 is to give legislative confirmation to orders in council that created the agency. It is important to note that it does not change powers or functions already conferred on the agency. This bill nearly enshrines in legislation what already exists in fact.

Essentially, Bill C-8 does four things. First, it adds the position of President of the Agency to the Financial Administration Act, just as the Secretary of the Treasury Board and the Comptroller General of Canada are already identified in the act. Second, it specifies the nature of the powers and functions that may be delegated by the Treasury Board to the President of the Agency, in the same manner as set out in the FAA for the Secretary of the Treasury Board and the Comptroller General of Canada. Third, Bill C-8 stipulates that the President of Treasury Board is responsible and accountable for the coordination of the activities of the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the Comptroller General of Canada and the President of the Agency. Please note that the term “accountable” was added at the time of the review by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. This is the only amendment made to Bill C-8. It was unanimously adopted.

And finally, as a result of the changes, Bill C-8 requires amendments to two other acts, an amendment to the Canada School of Public Service Act to appoint the President of the Agency as an ex-officio member of the School's Board of Governors, replacing the President of the Public Service Commission. It also requires an amendment to the Official Languages Act to stipulate that it is the President of the Agency, rather than the Secretary of the Treasury Board, who will provide the Commissioner of Official Languages with any audit reports that are prepared under the responsibility of the Treasury Board.

[ English ]

As you can see, although they are relatively modest additions to the Financial Administration Act, Bill C-8 constitutes a key step for the administration of the public service. First, a legislative base will provide greater visibility, legitimacy and stability to the agency that only a legal framework can offer. This will facilitate the implementation of its policies, programs and services. Second, a legislated mandate would clarify the role of the agency within the system and with the unions. It will clarify its relationship within the Treasury Board portfolio and the role of Treasury Board as employer. Third, a legislative base will support better integration of activities in respect of human resources management within the Treasury Board portfolio. Fourth, giving a legislative base to the agency demonstrates the importance placed by government on human resources management and signals government's recognition that its most precious resource is its employees who serve Canadians.

The federal public service is Canada's largest employer. Setting up a human resources management agency for the public service sends an unequivocal signal to all managers, public servants and union representatives that some human resources management is a priority for the Government of Canada. That is why, as a public servant, I am proud to present Bill C-8.

I should like to bring to the attention of senators some technical aspects on the way in which Bill C-8 was drafted. Bill C-8 was written prior to the coming-into-force date of section 5 of the Public Service Modernization Act, the PSMA. As both Bill C-8 and section 5 of the PSMA aim to modify section 6 of the Financial Administration Act, coordinating amendments were built into Bill C-8 to plan for this uncertainty, should section 5 of the PSMA come into force before or after Bill C-8. These coordinating amendments are in clauses 4 and 5 of Bill C-8. However, it is now known that section 5 of the PSMA came into force on December 1, 2004. Consequently, since December, as per the provisions of Bill C-8, clause 1 of Bill C-8 has been repealed and replaced by clause 4 of the same bill; clause 5 of the bill is no longer relevant; and only clauses 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 will come into force after the passage of the bill.

On this basis, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of the House of Commons approved Bill C-8, as a whole, knowing that coordinating amendments had been provided in the bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for your introductory comments. We are privileged to have with us today the sponsor of Bill C-8 in the Senate, Senator Ringuette.

[ Translation ]

Senator Ringuette: I accepted to sponsor the bill in the Senate because it seemed obvious to me that as legislators, over the last few years, we hadn't addressed the issue of the management of human resources within the public service.

As Mr. Dumesnil mentioned, as the public service is Canada's largest employer, I consider this a serious oversight. I am pleased to see that there will be a specific focus on human resources in order to ensure sound, effective and generally fair management.

I have two small questions for Mr. Dumesnil. You mentioned that the president of the agency is now going to take over for the president of the Public Service Commission and join the School of Public Service. Is there a reason for this change?

Mr. Dumesnil: Yes, some of the Public Service Commission's duties were transferred to the school as well as to our agency; the agency is now responsible for the entire learning policy. They also transferred research on the public service's future needs to the agency, so it was logical for the president of the agency to replace the president of the public service, given the fact that the services were transferred to the school and to the agency.

Senator Ringuette: Could you clarify for us the role played by the agency in comparison with that played by the Public Service Commission, on the issue of union representation?

Mr. Dumesnil: I do not know if I can answer your question adequately, senator. I can however say that union relations still fall under Treasury Board's mandate; they were not transferred to the agency, nor are they the responsibility of the public service.

The Public Service Commission is what I would call an “independent oversight agency reporting to Parliament.” Perhaps I can clarify its mandate, but labour-management relations are still being dealt with by Treasury Board Secretariat.

Senator Ringuette: Will the agency have a role to play with public service unions? Under the agency's mandate, there are fundamental management issues, there is the Employment Equity Act, the Official Languages Act, as well as changes to job classifications; all of this will certainly be of interest to unions. What kind of dialogue will take place?

Mr. Dumesnil: We have consultation mechanisms to communicate with unions on all political matters. We sit on all committees. We will continue to do so, for all transferred responsibilities in this area. We will continue to maintain an excellent relationship with all unions, as we renew our policies. Everything we do is done in consultation with the unions. We will continue to work in the same way as we always have, but there will be improvements because under the Public Service Modernization Act, policy development is something we work on with the unions. This is going to continue to be the case with modernization.

Senator Ringuette: My last question is a major one. Considerable efforts have been made over the last few years, on both sides, in order to review job classification within the public service, efforts which did not bear fruit, in my opinion. Does the agency foresee classification reform for public service employees? Does the agency consider this a priority?

Mr. Dumesnil: It is a major priority. If you read our report on the plan, these are priorities that were set out last March. Currently, classification reform is one of the agency's seven major priorities. It is spread out over five years. The reform is in its second year. We can give you details on what is being done. It is a major component. Everything relating to modernization that is done within the agency is linked to the modernization of the Public Service Act. It is definitely one of our top priorities.

Senator Ringuette: Will this be a part of the agency's new system for reporting to Parliament?

Mr. Dumesnil: I would like to point out that in the past, when we were a part of the Secretariat — which had a huge mandate — the report on plans and priorities which was tabled before Parliament by the president of Treasury Board was five pages long. Today, it is a 50-page document that sets out all of the details, plans and priorities surrounding official languages, employment equity, the implementation of the Public Service Modernization Act, the issue of bolstering accountability in human resources management, values and ethics, leadership programs, as well as classification reform. These aspects are dealt with in great detail in the report on plans and priorities for the next three years. We can give you a copy of our second report, tabled before Parliament on March 24. On the issue of accountability and information, this report is complete. The president of Treasury Board must defend the report before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The document now contains 50 pages instead of 4, 5 or 6 on human resources management.

Senator Ringuette : In their human resources planning, how are you going to get the Public Service Commission and the human resources branches of the various departments to use the tools of the Public Service Commission for recruiting?

Two things are of particular concern to me: first, the report indicating that bureaucratic favouritism played a role in the hiring of 25 per cent of students in 2003. Second, the complaints we constantly get about the fact that the human resources branches of various departments do not use the service provided by the Public Service Commission and bypass the whole Public Service Act by going through agencies to fill supposedly temporary positions that typically become permanent positions.

So they go around the whole system used by the Public Service Commission, on the pretext that it is too slow. I do not think it is because it is too slow, it is just that there is bad planning, bad management of our human resources.

How is your agency going to be able to restore the process so that this tool that we have, and that we are supposed to use the Public Service Commission for, is used by the departments?

Mr. Dumesnil: I am not the expert, I am not involved in any of the programs. I am just the Director General of Strategic Planning. I can assure you that the problem, as you have defined it, is very real, it is a huge priority. One thing we are working on is reinforcing human resources planning and accountability; we are currently working with departments to create tools to better integrate human resources planning with operational planning. To that end, we are also working with the Public Service Commission on the whole recruiting problem, especially the external versus internal aspect. The number of applications every year is mind-boggling. The number of positions filled with those 50,000 applications — I do not have the exact figures — poses a problem in terms of internal recruitment versus external recruitment.

It is one of our top priorities. Ms. Boudrias is working closely with Ms. Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission, on the whole issue of recruitment. In fact, that was one of the priorities in the budget, the so-called small book on the budget, entitled Modernization of the Public Sector Management . In that document, recruitment is referred to as one of our priorities. Our deputy minister, Ms. Chartrand, has made it a priority to work together with Ms. Barrados to deal with this kind of problem.

I do not have the details. Ms. Boudrias could give you a more in-depth answer to that question.

[ English ]

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Dumesnil, you indicated that you are acting on behalf of Ms. Monique Boudrias, the executive vice-president of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. Is there a president of the agency, or does this legislation create that position?

Mr. Dumesnil: There is a president of the agency. That person was named at the time the agency was created, on December 12, 2003. Ms. Chartrand is the equivalent of a deputy head; she heads the agency.

Senator Downe: Why is the president not here?

Mr. Dumesnil: Ms. Chartrand is accompanying Minister Alcock, the President of Treasury Board, at the House of Commons Government Operations and Estimates Committee in their discussion on the Main Estimates this morning. There was a conflict.

The Deputy Chairman: It is our intention with our ongoing mandate to have perhaps the president and the executive vice-president attend before us; however, we were also interested in moving along with this legislation. We knew that you had the background in relation to the legislation. We are pleased that you were able to be with us. That was helpful in that regard.

Bill C-8 seems to be part of the overall scheme of public service modernization, along with Bill C-25, which we handled a couple of years ago in this committee. Is Bill C-8 an afterthought, is it part of the planned evolution of this modernization of the public service?

Mr. Dumesnil: I was not there at that time, so I cannot say it was an afterthought. This is something the government decided to do in December 2003 in terms of reorganizing and restructuring the government. In November 2003, the Public Service Modernization Act received Royal Assent. The huge challenge of implementing that legislation was there. The Treasury Board Secretariat had a huge mandate and decided to create that entity called the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency to handle most of what I call the HR functions that were part of the Treasury Board Secretariat. It came into play by this political decision, and I was not really part of that stuff at that time at all. It is difficult for me to answer. Madame Boudrias would have been much better placed since she has been the one leading the Public Service Modernization Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, we got to know her very well during that period of time and you can tell her that we are looking forward to having her appear before our committee in due course.

How far along are you on your long-term planning with respect to the agency? Is it premature for us to bring in either Ms. Chartrand or Ms. Boudrias to talk about long-term goals or objectives, or have you been operating long enough now as an agency?

Mr. Dumesnil: Definitely. In fact, if you read our report on plans and priorities, it is just like a strategic plan. It tells our vision, the mission, the results that we want to deliver over the next three to five years, the priorities, the resource involvement, the targets we want to achieve and so forth. Either of those people could attend here any time and display that in front of you. I can even share with you our report on plans and priorities, which is a 50-page document that describes all of these things.

The Deputy Chairman: Could you make that available to our committee?

Mr. Dumesnil: Absolutely.

The Deputy Chairman: That would be helpful in preparing for Madame Boudrias when she attends here.

Do you have anything in writing that would help us understand the relationship between the new agency and the Public Service Commission as well as your relationship in relation to the Official Languages Act? You talk about responsibilities that may be delegated to the president of the agency in relation to audit reports. My understanding is that it is more than merely audit reports, that there is a supervisory role that could be delegated to the president of the agency in relation to the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Dumesnil: We have an official languages branch, which was the one dealing with the Official Languages Act's implementation, the monitoring and all of these things. It was part of the Treasury Board Secretariat before and now has been transferred, as one of the many functions within the agency. The official languages branch is part of the agency. That is why instead of the secretary tabling the report, we wanted to make that amendment, that it should be our deputy minister tabling the report since the official languages branch is part of the agency now.

The Deputy Chairman: Does that include monitoring and implementation as well as auditing?

Mr. Dumesnil: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: In terms of your relationship with the Public Service Commission and the role in setting standards and different objectives within the Public Service Commission —

Mr. Dumesnil: I do not have anything in writing.

The Deputy Chairman: Can you explain that a little bit more for us? Is there overlap there in terms of the standards, categories and job classifications, those kinds of roles, within the public service?

Mr. Dumesnil: I would prefer to have someone else answer that question.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you take that back as a question and give us an understanding of the relationship between the agency and the Public Service Commission on those issues?

Mr. Dumesnil: Yes.

Senator Downe: My question pertains to the costs. When the agency was established in December 2003, what additional cost to the treasury was there in setting up this agency?

Mr. Dumesnil: There was no cost because these entities were part of the secretariat. They were transferred, and we created the office of the deputy minister through the envelope that was transferred with the functions. It did not create anything. As a matter of fact, we have been moving to consolidate many vice-presidents' positions, moving from seven vice-presidents at the beginning to four. We are actually moving to reduce costs, and we have been participating in the reallocation exercise. There were no cost implications. We just operated within the envelope and even went to downsizing.

Senator Downe: The costs were reallocated, as I understand. The current president, for example, was not at the DM level. I think you indicated earlier she is currently at the DM level. That would be an additional cost, but that is a reallocation, is it not?

Mr. Dumesnil: Yes, it was handled through the envelope transfer.

Senator Downe: The vice-presidents — seven to four — what were the seven doing, and what consolidation is happening that you require only four now?

Mr. Dumesnil: It is not seven to four. We are moving to consolidate some vice-president positions, to deal with the reallocation exercise. We have been combining VP classifications — for example, the VP in charge of the secretariat and the HR modernization. They have been combined under one vice-president. We have been doing the same thing for employment equity for HR planning and accountability; there were two vice-presidents, now combined under one vice-president. We are looking at combining two more vice-presidents to meet our reallocation target.

Senator Downe: You had how many vice-presidents before this reorganization?

Mr. Dumesnil: Seven, and we hope in the end to have five or four.

Senator Downe: The 5 per cent reallocation under expenditure review, where did that 5 per cent come from?

Mr. Dumesnil: We had a youth internship program that was eliminated.

Senator Downe: What was that program? Was that young people outside or inside the public service?

Mr. Dumesnil: It was one of our programs under our leadership network.

Senator Downe: Were these current public servants or were they outside of the public service?

Mr. Dumesnil: It was to recruit young people outside of the public service. It was transferred to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. I do not have the details.

Senator Downe: I appreciate that. What else was affected by the 5 per cent?

Mr. Dumesnil: We went through streamlining exercises, consolidations, et cetera. I do not have the details.

Senator Downe: I appreciate that; if you can send them, it would be appreciated. Was there any change at the senior level under the reallocation or was it all at the entry level, the youth internship and other programs that were affected?

It seems to me that, under this reorganization in December 2003, what has happened is that someone has been elevated to the DM level, there has been a 5 per cent reallocation, and some of that affected the people at the lower level — the youth internship and others. Has there been any reallocation at the top? There has been a consolidation of the seven vice-presidents to four or five. Those people were taking early retirement, were they?

Mr. Dumesnil: I do not have the details for all of that.

Senator Downe: My question, Mr. Chairman, is the cost. This reorganization was done very quickly; what is the cost to the treasury and what are the implications? We also have the expenditure review; we are now seeing the impact of the expenditure review across the government and across the country. I am interested in pursing that, and I will at a later date.

The Deputy Chairman: Is that something you can provide us when you go back to your office?

Mr. Dumesnil: Sure.

The Deputy Chairman: If it takes some time to do the work, you can indicate to the president and the executive vice- president that we will be pursuing that question when they appear before us. We appreciate that the agency has now been in existence for a period of time, so you should have a bit of understanding as to the answers to those questions.

Could you, as well as researching that information for us, provide us with an organization chart?

Mr. Dumesnil: Absolutely. In fact you have it in the RPP, the report on plans and priorities. The organizational chart is there.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

[ Translation ]

Senator Ferretti Barth: You are going to designate a president of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. How are you going to choose that president? Will the position be open to all? How much is this change going to cost?

Mr. Dumesnil: The position of president already exists. The president has already been appointed.

Senator Ferretti Barth: Who appointed her?

Mr. Dumesnil: The Prime Minister, I guess.

Senator Ferretti Barth: On whose recommendations? Was there a selection from among eligible candidates?

Mr. Dumesnil: During restructuring, directors were appointed and Ms. Chartrand was appointed president of the new agency, which was created by Order-in-Council in November 2003. She is still our president, and that is how it was done. The Prime Minister appointed a series of deputy ministers and Ms. Chartrand was appointed at that time.

Senator Ferretti Barth: That kind of appointment bothers me a bit. We hear names left, right and centre; people who may never have made a mark in political or public life. Are there not any rules for those appointments? I accept that it comes from the Prime Minister's Office, but those people are appointed to deal with activities that affect the public service and the public in general.

Mr. Dumesnil: Ms. Chartrand had a position at Privy Council Office at the time.

Senator Ferretti Barth: Is it indiscreet to ask you what Ms. Chartrand's salary is?

Mr. Dumesnil: I do not have that detail.

Senator Ferretti Barth: Can you provide us with it?

Mr. Dumesnil: Yes, certainly.

[ English ]

Senator Stratton: My question is in reference to Senator Downe's interest in how much this will cost. The House side expressed concern about the cost of the creation of an independent agency and thus did not recommend that. You cannot run anything without costs, but if it falls within something else, then it may be difficult to break down those costs, which we need to know. Was that why there was not a new separate human resources agency? If so, what would that new agency have cost, because there would have been an independence that currently we do not have, as compared to what it will cost? How much are we giving up for that independence? To save a few dollars, what will we give up? I think we need to know the figures.

Ms. Mylène Bouzigon, Senior General Counsel, Finance, Treasury Board, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency: I am far from being as expert at financial matters as you, senator, but I believe the agency has a line in the estimates and in the supply bills. We would be pleased to forward to the committee the information in respect of the activities of the agency.

Senator Stratton: I appreciate that, but I want to understand why the House did not pursue a new, independent agency. If the reason was the cost, then we should have known that amount as compared to what the cost will now be. There should be a difference that could tell us why the House decided not to go to a new agency because of the cost and to fold it in instead, saving money as a result. How much are we saving by doing this, thereby giving up the independence of an outside agency? What are we giving up? What is the saving? It should be known in real dollars.

Ms. Bouzigon: Do you need a response?

Senator Stratton: I would expect a response to the committee stating the amount an independent agency would have cost, the amount it will cost today, and the amount saved. The House said it did not want the expense of creating an additional agency and determined it would save money by folding it in? However, how much are we saving and what are we giving up?

Ms. Bouzigon: We will do our best to provide the information. The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency is a separate department as listed in one of the schedules of the Financial Administration Act. In that respect, it has its own reporting duties and obligations. It is not legally independent where it supports the Treasury Board as the committee of ministers, as does the Secretariat. We will do our best to obtain that information for the committee.

Senator Stratton: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it accepted that this agency was created as part of Treasury Board for financial reasons and not for administrative reasons? That seems to be the basis of the question.

Senator Stratton: That is my sense.

The Deputy Chairman: Could you provide an answer to that question as well?

Ms. Bouzigon: I will make a commitment on behalf of Mr. Dumesnil. However, I want to point out that there is not much fundamental difference between a separate agency and the agency as it currently exists. I am not aware of any financial aspects playing a part in determining how to proceed with the setting up of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency.

Senator Murray: The agency was created at the time of the swearing in of the then new government. Am I incorrect in my recollection that the announcement indicated that this agency would be under Privy Council?

Mr. Dumesnil: Yes, at the beginning the agency was reporting to the President of the Privy Council. However, after the election there were some adjustments and the agency was put under the President of Treasury Board.

Senator Murray: What reason was given for that change?

Mr. Dumesnil: I was not part of the discussions, senator. I believe it was in the context of providing, within the portfolio of the Treasury Board, better handling of all the components. As the employer, Treasury Board is responsible for all human resource management functions. By putting it under the Treasury Board portfolio, it facilitated the coordination of the work of the portfolio of Treasury Board.

Senator Murray: You will not object, but you will likely not comment, if one were to draw the conclusion that there was a turf war between Treasury Board and the PCO and that Treasury Board won.

This was set up by the Prime Minister in pursuance of his authority over the machinery of government. What is the official title of the act?

Ms. Bouzigon: It is the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.

Senator Murray: It was created by Order-in-Council under that act.

That leads me to my next question: What would happen if this bill were to be defeated, or if it were to die as a result of an early dissolution of Parliament? I am inviting you to reply that nothing would happen, life would go on.

The Deputy Chairman: Why do we have them here at all?

Senator Murray: How far wrong am I?

Senator Stratton: You are a cynic.

Senator Murray: No. I point out to you that the House of Commons fairly recently defeated the measure that would have given parliamentary authorization to the demerger of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We were told immediately that what they had done was really of no practical effect, that life would go on and the departments would remain as they had been for some time, separate ministries. What really would be the effect if this bill were defeated or did not pass?

Ms. Bouzigon: If I rely on the ruling of the Speaker of the House on this very matter, he indicated that going ahead in that other case did not constitute disrespect toward Parliament. To the effect we are talking about the effect or the lack of effect on the orders that have already been issued, I would suggest that these orders remain valid from a legal perspective. I would not comment from a political perspective on that matter. That would not be my place. If the bill did not get through, that would not have any direct affect on the validity of the orders passed under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.

Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, I wish to flag that issue for future consideration if you decide to file some kind of narrative with the report on this bill. Senator Lynch-Staunton has raised this on similar occasions in the past.

We all understand the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act and the Prime Minister's authority over machinery of government — that is clear. Increasingly, we are called upon simply to rubber stamp — which is not too harsh a term, I believe.

The Deputy Chairman: Regularize?

Senator Murray: Give parliamentary sanction to what has been done. We ought to look at that in terms of where the authority of the Governor-in-Council ends and where the authority of Parliament begins.

The Deputy Chairman: That is a fascinating issue. We will make note of that. If our witnesses have any comments they would like to pass along to us, we would appreciate receiving them. In the end, it seems that Senator Murray's answer to your question was not far off.

Senator Murray: I see in their statement and in the briefing book that our witnesses have been good enough to supply us with that there are certain benefits to giving this parliamentary sanction, but I maintain the position that if, for whatever reason, the bill were not to go through, this agency would continue as it has been doing without change.

Ms. Bouzigon: We cannot commit to what would happen in those circumstances.

The Deputy Chairman: Putting on my legal hat for a second, it would take an analysis of the bill and each clause of it to determine if there were something added to the Order-in-Council.

Senator Ringuette: Everyone around this table knows my concern about human resources management, planning and so forth. In regard to the turf war between PCO and Treasury Board, I see Treasury Board as the only venue for human resources. The Public Service Commission has the job of recruiting. With Bill C-25, the modernization act that we approved almost two years, the Public Service Commission has the delegation authority of human resources planning within the public service. The agency is necessary, whether it is called an agency or whatever, but I do agree that it has been somewhat disassociated to a certain extent in order to focus. We cannot deny that our public service and the different departments of government are in dire need of proper learning respecting how to manage and plan. In the next few years, 25 per cent of our current public service will retire. That is almost a crisis of human resources management. If you look outside the public service box and compare that to the private sector, it is a human resources crisis in terms of serving the Canadian taxpayer.

I agreed to sponsor this bill because we need to have an emergency focus on human resources management within our public service sector. PCO definitely does not fit the bill, to look at that as a focus, considering all the other priorities they have to work with. We now have an agency for which this is the primary function; it is not second, eighth or ninth on their agenda of responsibility, it is the first responsibility. This is urgent for the public service employees of this country.

Senator Downe: Senator Ringuette makes some excellent points. While everything she said is true about the large number of public servants retiring, the problem I have is that I am not convinced that this was very well thought out. In December 2003, decisions were made. Six months later, after the election, these matters were reallocated or reassigned to another department, whether it is Privy Council or Treasury Board. I have some concerns about expenditure of funds. First, I wonder if we are meeting the objectives that Canadian taxpayers want us to meet. Second, what is the thought process behind this reorganization? After the next election, will this agency be merged with another department? Will it go back to what it was? Will it be reassigned somewhere else? What is the plan? Where does the government want to be with this agency in five and ten years? We will have to keep an eye on these matters as we go forward over the next few months.

Senator Murray: I wish to pursue this question of the new responsibilities under the Official Languages Act and related policies. There are three ministers, as I recall, who have particular responsibility for official languages: the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and your minister, the President of the Treasury Board. There is also a minister who has a coordinating role now, Mr. Bélanger.

The responsibility of the Treasury Board has to do with the implementation of the act and the policy within the public service. That is a large part of the whole thing, and it deals with three matters in particular. One is language of service to the public. The second is language of work — and correct me if I am wrong on this; if this does not fall within your responsibility, say so. Therefore, we have — language of service to the public, language of work within the public service, and equitable representation of the two official language groups in the public service.

How are you organizing yourselves to take this on? Are you absorbing the individuals and branches of the Treasury Board that now do this work? Are they moving over to come under your direction? How are you doing that?

Mr. Dumesnil: There have been no real changes. That official languages branch and its functions were transferred to the agency from the Treasury Board Secretariat, so there have been no real changes at all.

Senator Murray: The branch in question deals with language of service, language of work and equitable representation.

Mr. Dumesnil: I think so.

Senator Murray: Yours is not just an oversight responsibility. It is an operational responsibility, right? You have an executive responsibility.

[ Translation ]

You bring departments and agencies that are not following the act or the spirit of the Official Languages Act back into line.

Mr. Dumesnil: We monitor and draft reports.

[ English ]

Senator Murray: Are you taking on issues such as the bilingual bonus, which has been the subject of criticism from a succession of official languages commissioners?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Dumesnil: I am not an expert in that area. I would prefer to have the appropriate person answer those questions.

Senator Murray: I am on the official languages committee. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to discuss it again.

Mr. Dumesnil: Definitely, with our vice-president, Ms. Diana Monnette.

[ English ]

Ms. Bouzigon: I should like to add something. The Treasury Board remains responsible to follow up and to direct departments where there are issues that the agency wishes to refer to Treasury Board.

The agency still supports Treasury Board. That has not changed. The branches that were doing —

Senator Murray: Your agency?

Ms. Bouzigon: The agency still supports Treasury Board — the powers and duties and functions of the board, not the secretariat but the board, none of that has changed.

Senator Murray: I understand that, but the secretariat has delegated — I see heads being shaken negatively. You have taken over responsibility for implementation of the Official Languages Act in the public service, right? That responsibility has been delegated to you from somewhere. I see your friends back there shaking their heads.

Ms. Bouzigon: The legal group with me. The Treasury Board has these broad-ranging policies; then, under the Treasury Board, there is an apparatus to support it. That apparatus was split in December 2003, where a number of functions that were part of the secretariat and portions of the secretariat were moved into the new agency, which then for a while reported to another minister. However, you still had the Treasury Board there.

Since July, you have the agency, the secretariat, going hand in hand in supporting the Treasury Board ministers. The Treasury Board oversight functions and duties have not been modified at all, and it is not modified by the bill.

Senator Murray: You do not report through the secretary of the Treasury Board. Your top person is the deputy head.

Ms. Bouzigon: The secretary remains the secretary of the board, in that he has special functions that only he has. However, the deputy head, the president, of the agency is charged with the entire management function.

Senator Murray: And reports to the minister?

Ms. Bouzigon: Yes. If I can clarify a point, there are two things that are done by the bill that would fall if the bill does not proceed. That is the official languages reference here to having the report being done by the president of the agency, and the other changes to the school boards.

Senator Murray: The audits.

Ms. Bouzigon: And the sitting of the schools boards. That was not in the Orders- in-Council. That is solely in the bill.

Senator Murray: Who does the audits now?

Ms. Bouzigon: Now it is the secretary of Treasury Board. It just makes sense to move that along with the rest of the functions.

The Deputy Chairman: I should like to thank our witness, Mr. Dumesnil and Ms. Bouzigon. You have undertaken a number of research projects for us and we look forward to receiving that information, which will prepare us to meet with your executive vice-president and the president in due course. Perhaps you would take back our best wishes to them and tell them we are looking forward to them attending here.

Second, honourable senators, it is your steering committee's understanding that we would be ready to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at our meeting tomorrow. We will do that at the beginning of the meeting at 6:15 p.m. We usually have a chance to meet socially over some nourishment at 5:30 p.m., and then we will proceed with the meeting, do the clause by clause and continue with representatives of Treasury Board on our favourite subject of foundations.

Senator Murray: It is always a good idea, in my humble opinion, when we are doing clause-by-clause consideration to have at least an official here, in the event that a senator wants to ask questions.

The Deputy Chairman: Would that be possible? Thank you, the indications are yes.

The committee adjourned.