January 18,

1995 PUBLIC

ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Donald Whelan, M.H.A.

(Harbour Main) substitutes for John Crane, M.H.A. (Harbour Grace).

The House met at 2:00 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Windsor): Order, please! I now

call the meeting to order.

Let me first of all welcome the witnesses who are

here from Treasury Board. I am pleased to have you here. For those of you who

have not been here before, let me say first of all that this is an extension of

the House of Assembly, a Standing Committee of the House. I think most of you

probably have been here, though; I am not sure. Peter, you have been here

before?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Still, we operate under the same

rules as the House of Assembly. We are neither judge nor jury. We are not here

to decide anything, but simply to gather evidence and report subsequently to the

House of Assembly, although some of the questions may be - I hope will be, from

the members of the Committee - very searching questions. There are some

interesting topics that we have before us today.

I ask you to speak clearly into the microphones,

and if I fail to identify you, to identify yourself for the benefit of Hansard

so that the proceedings can be transcribed accurately.

You will be asked to take the oath. If you have not

taken the oath before, you will be asked to take an oath, so evidence is given

under oath. We will ask the clerk to do that in a moment.

I don't know if there are any news media present.

If there are, they are certainly welcome to be here, and if they wanted some

film, I would give them an opportunity to do that.

First of all, I will introduce the members of the

committee. I am Neil Windsor, of course, MHA for Mount Pearl, Chairman of the

Committee; my co-chair, Mr. Melvin Penney, MHA for Lewisporte; to my left, Mr.

Alvin Hewlett, MHA for Green Bay; Mr. Oliver Langdon, MHA for Fortune -

Hermitage; Mr. Don Whelan, MHA for Harbour Main; Mr. Doug Oldford, MHA for

Trinity North; and Mr. Glenn Tobin, MHA for Burin - Placentia West. At the

table, of course, we have our secretary, Ms. Elizabeth Murphy, and Mr. Mark

Noseworthy, our research assistant.

I welcome the witnesses and the Auditor General,

and perhaps the Auditor General would introduce the staff people she has with

her this afternoon.

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To my immediate left is Mr. Wayne Loveys, the Audit

Manager responsible for the audit of Treasury Board, and to my far left is Mr.

Bill Drover, our Audit Principal with the office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

I welcome Mr. Peter Kennedy, the Secretary of

Treasury Board, once again, for the second or third time - second or third time,

Peter? Second time at least. Perhaps you would like to introduce the witnesses

you have with you today.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To my immediate right is Mr. Bob Smart, the

Assistant Secretary of Treasury Board, responsible for human resources matters.

To Mr. Smart's right is Noreen Holden, Director of Personnel Policy, and to her

right Mr. Albert Meadus, our Director of Classification and Pay. These people

should be able to adequately handle whatever inquiries come up under this

subject. It is a very broad and far-reaching topic that you are covering today,

and preparation and response to it, of course, was done prior to my recent time

in Treasury Board but, as you note, Mr. Chairman, I was there previously, as

were you; in fact, we were there together.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you are saying that we are

responsible for anything that is built into the system?

MR. KENNEDY: I don't know. I think I am being

held more accountable than you are, because I (inaudible) back there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Perhaps now the clerk would like to swear in the

witnesses. I think there are some that have probably not been sworn in

previously.

SWEARING OF WITNESSES:

Peter Kennedy

Robert Smart

Noreen Holden

Albert Meadus

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Perhaps we will

begin by asking the Auditor General if she has anything to say by way of opening

comments.

MS. MARSHALL: I don't have an opening statement

but I do have a few comments, Mr. Chairman.

The audit of Treasury Board focused mainly on human

resource issues. We looked at various systems and processes and policies and

procedures that were in place within the Board, and made recommendations. Some

were accepted and I think others are under further consideration.

The most major issue that I feel in the report relates

to the human resource management information system, which is dealt with in the

latter part of the report. Salaries in government is government's single largest

expenditure. Back as far as 1987 there was a need for a human resource

management information system determined to adequately manage government's human

resources. This system has been under consideration and under development since

that time. I recommended to Treasury Board that they address the delay in

getting this system implemented within the various government departments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kennedy, do you want to make any opening comments?

MR. KENNEDY: No, I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. I

think it might be more appropriate, given the expanse of items covered here, to

perhaps deal directly with questions topic by topic as we go through it.

We certainly recognize, if there is one thing I would

say, the importance of a good program of human resource management within the

public sector, given the large percentage of public funds spent on salaries and

salary-related costs. Particularly at a time when the budget is itself

continuing to face some pressure. That is why we have an Assistant Deputy

Minister in Treasury Board, Mr. Smart, to my right, who is in fact responsible

for all human resource management issues. We have other resources in place that

indicate a strong commitment or strong sensitivity on our part to the need for

sound human resource management. Just on that note, perhaps, we would go into

the questioning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I should just

inform the representatives from Treasury Board that this morning the Committee

received some testimony from the Public Service Commission on issues which are

somewhat related to matters that are referred to here. In fact, some of the

questions that were referred to representatives of the Public Service Commission

may well want to be directed to Treasury Board representatives. Particularly as

it relates to apparent conflict between the Public Service Commission act and a

number of collective agreements as it relates to hiring procedures and whether

or not the merit principle should govern, particularly over seniority. There

seems to be a conflict here, so I am sure Committee members will want to get

into that and pursue that further, and perhaps try to find some consensus as to

how this matter might be dealt with.

Mr. Tobin would you like to start out this afternoon,

Sir?

MR. TOBIN: Basically, on the same line of

questioning as this morning, temporary positions. I am wondering if Treasury

Board can inform me as to how many temporary positions are there presently

within the public service?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kennedy.

MR. KENNEDY: I assume that would be a function in

part of how the public service is defined, whether it is narrowly defined as

just being departments or whether it encompasses Crown agencies that are fairly

close to government and eventually hospitals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All the school boards and so on.

MR. TOBIN: Well, we will get into the school board

MR. KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Smart has some data so I

will ask him to provide that data and explain where the data comes from.

MR. SMART: In terms of temporary employees

throughout the whole system, and by the whole system we mean doing a canvas of

hospitals, so on and so forth, and not just government departments. Throughout

the public service we have according to our latest data approximately 2300

temporary employees. Now, that is the whole public service which includes, as I

said, a bunch of agencies not covered by the Public Service Commission,

hospitals, for instance. Out of a total of 26,000 employees approximately 2300

would be temporary.

MR. TOBIN: Close to 10 per cent.

MR. SMART: In round numbers, yes.

MR. TOBIN: Do you have a breakdown of how many of

those would be in government departments?

MR. SMART: Yes, I do have it. I can pass this to

Bert Meadus if you want and he can tally up the numbers. It is not all in one

spot here but you can go through, Bert, and figure out that number. We can get

it for you very quickly. It is not just one number for government departments.

He has to add up several columns there.

MR. TOBIN: Why is it necessary to have temporary

employees when you have a Public Service Commission that has being mandated to

do the hiring for the government, and is it not in effect a way to circumvent

the operations of the Public Service Commission, to get people into the

government operations?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smart.

MR. SMART: I do not view it as a way to circumvent

the operations of the Public Service Commission because the Public Service

Commission Act specifically states that it does not apply to the engagement of

temporary employees, so there is no circumventing the act. The act in the Public

Service Commission was structured with that in mind, that it would not apply to

temporary employees. There are any number of reasons, that an employees gets

sick, an employees goes on maternity leave, and you need an employee to fill in

for three weeks, three months, six months. You need them reasonably quickly, and

you can't engage yourself in a process where it might take you four, six or

eight weeks to fill the position, when in fact the position was only available

for four, six or eight weeks to begin with. There are any number of reasons why

you would need someone for a short period.

MR. TOBIN: There would be other reasons, I would

think, other than four to six weeks. Wouldn't you have people on the list who

extend far beyond four to six weeks, and indeed into the months and years?

MR. SMART: Temporary positions could go up to a

period of a year or two years. We have situations for instance in government

departments under a number of cost-shared agreements - forestry agreements and

so on - whereby the employment of permanent employees will not be cost-shared,

but the employment of temporary employees will. There have been people employed

under those cost-shared agreements for five, six, seven or eight years. Lengthy

temporary positions, yes.

MR. TOBIN: Isn't it also a way for people to come

into the public service and then be eligible to compete on competitions?

MR. SMART: By the fact that you are employed in

the public service you become eligible to compete. It gets you the opportunity

to put in an application on an internal job competition. You then, in order to

secure a permanent position, have to go through the Public Service Commission

process in applying for jobs and the process they put you through. I guess the

fact that you are temporary, yes, it gets you the opportunity to apply. I'm not

sure that is a great advantage or not, but....

MR. TOBIN: Right now there is sort of basically a

closed shop in terms of applying for a job unless you are within the Public

Service Commission. If somebody can bring you into the Public Service Commission

through the back door then you have an opportunity to apply in a competition.

Wouldn't that be right?

MR. SMART: You get an opportunity to apply by the

fact that you are temporary, yes.

MR. TOBIN: The fact that you served in it for a

year or so, wouldn't that make you sort of a leading candidate to fill that

position in many instances?

MR. SMART: I would think you would have to ask the

Public Service Commission what type of emphasis they put on someone being in a

job for a year and how much weight they put on that in the recruitment process.

That would be a factor that they would -

MR. TOBIN: They've expressed concerns over the

fact that there are temporary people in the system. They've expressed their

concerns and I think it is fair to say that the Public Service Commission

probably has some concerns as to how they are getting in through the back door.

MR. SMART: Just on your previous point. In

government departments, with respect to your earlier point, there are

approximately 1,600 temporary employees.

MR. TOBIN: Out of how many employees?

MR. SMART: Out of the total complement in

government departments and probably 10,000 in round numbers.

MR. TOBIN: So you would be up to 16 per cent

within government departments.

MR. SMART: Yes. I think you would have to factor

in there -

MR. TOBIN: Do you find that to be somewhat

extraordinary, 16 per cent of the public service in this Province is on

temporary?

MR. SMART: I don't know that I could put a figure

on what would be a reasonable number. Whether it is 10, 15 or 20 per cent or

what a standard should be but I don't find it surprising really when you look at

the number of cost-shared arrangements and so on that are throughout the

government and the people who get employed under those arrangements because they

are just that, they are for a one year period, a three year period or a five

year cost-shared agreement. It does not surprise me that we would have very

large pockets of temporary employees in certain areas.

MR. TOBIN: How many agreements, such as that,

would you have under way right now then?

MR. SMART: I don't know. Peter, could you -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kennedy.

MR. KENNEDY: The normal cost-shared agreements

that help provide services and deliver programming in this Province, there are

probably twelve or fifteen.

MR. TOBIN: And all of these employees are

temporary employees?

MR. KENNEDY: Some would employ significantly more

employees of a temporary nature. The other advantage of a temporary employee in

that situation -

MR. TOBIN: Some agreements more so than other

agreements?

MR. KENNEDY: More than others, like the forestry

agreement would be fairly labour intensive. A lot of employment would be

available for silviculture products and so on. Something like the strategic

investment agreement might have three or four employees basically hired to

administer the agreement only.

MR. TOBIN: Not all the employees of either

agreement would be temporary then?

MR. KENNEDY: People paid under the agreement are

generally temporary employees because usually there are restrictions in your

ability to cost-share the salaries of permanent employees.

MR. TOBIN: You say there are under 16 per cent.

How many people have been laid-off in the public service in the past couple of

years?

MR. KENNEDY: That would be difficult to determine.

How many people would be laid-off including temporary employees who may have

been laid-off and then hired back three months later and then laid-off -

MR. TOBIN: No people who have been laid-off, while

there are 1,600 temporary employees in this system right now, how many people

would have been laid-off during that period?

MR. KENNEDY: I would not be able to put a number

on it for you.

MR. TOBIN: But there would have been some?

MR. KENNEDY: Oh there certainly would have been

layoffs, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Public Service

Commission this morning said that they have expressed concern to the secretary

regarding the practice of temporary employees. What have you done to deal with

the concern raised by the Public Service Commission?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smart.

MR. SMART: We've had some discussions with the

Public Service Commission in terms of their concern about the employment of

temporaries. There are a lot of good reasons why temporary employees should be

employed and they are in fact temporary. Their concern relates to situations, as

I understand it, where there is a permanent position, someone is put into that

permanent position on a temporary basis and then one, two or three years down

the road, when the job is advertised on a permanent basis, that temporary

employee has a leg up on everyone else. That seems to be the basis for their

concern. I am not sure to what extent that practice is very widespread. My

assessment would be that in most cases where temporary employees are employed it

is legitimate. They may be employed to fill a permanent position, but it may be

because the department has visions of abolishing that position twelve months

down the road anyway, so it is only a temporary arrangement.

I'm aware of their concern but I'm not in a position

to say how valid the concern is, or how widespread the practice that they seem

to be concerned about is in the public service.

MR. TOBIN: Will the Secretariat be addressing it

in greater detail? Will you be checking it further, the concerns that have been

raised?

MR. SMART: In terms of the latest round of

negotiations with NAPE and CUPE, for instance, we agreed with the union that we

would jointly look at the whole practice of employing temporary people. Yes, we

are going to look at it, and we are going to look at it in a formal way. A

representative from the Public Service Commission is involved in that process

with us. Yes, it is being looked at.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I pass it to someone

else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tobin. Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Smart, these temporaries, the

number of temporaries, would they vary throughout the year with the seasons? I'm

referring to in the wintertime, obviously Works, Services and Transportation,

they hire a winter crew for snow clearing, and they have labourers and that type

of thing. In the summertime you have all these tourism jobs in the tourism sites

around the Province. Does it vary very much?

MR. SMART: Yes, it varies widely, which is why the

question of how many people got laid off is a difficult question. We would lay

off a large number of people at the end of the summer period and hire on another

bunch in October and lay off another bunch. There are a lot of layoffs and

recalls going on all the time, but it is seasonal in a number of areas. Another

example would be forest fire suppression, where obviously in the summertime

there is a large influx of people to assist with forest fire suppression, but at

the end of the forest fire season they are all laid off again. It is very

cyclical in a number of areas.

MR. OLDFORD: So they are included in the 1,600?

MR. SMART: Yes.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Tobin mentioned something about

layoffs in the public service. Obviously with layoffs the duties that these

people who are laid off, the duties they were performing, are obviously put on

the shoulders of some other civil servant. Usually what happens once this occurs

is there is a request for reclassification of the position. The Auditor General

identified on page 11 of her report that there were quite long delays in appeals

of the decisions made by Classification and Pay. Somewhere between six months

and seven months from the time that an appeal is sought to the time that it is

finally resolved. I wonder, what is Treasury Board doing to speed up that

process? Obviously it seems like a long time to me - is there anything in place

now that would change the length of time that it normally takes?

MR. SMART: We've modified the appeal procedures in

a couple of areas. We've also appointed a new Classification Appeals Board that

has put a considerable effort into clearing up the backlog. We've tried to

streamline the process a bit and get rid of the backlog and to improve the

turnaround time. In some cases there are, for various reasons - because

documentation isn't available and so on -, delays in answering appeals are

unavoidable. I think we've taken some reasonable measures to try to expedite

that process and speed it up, yes.

MR. OLDFORD: The Board's response to the Auditor

General said that: "...Cabinet recently approved a reconstitution of the

Classification Appeals Board." Can you explain what that meant and how it

changed things?

MR. SMART: The previous Classification Appeals

Board that we did have was chaired by someone outside the public service and

included a number of people who sat on the Board and were paid a per diem rate.

The change we made to the constitution of the Board is we took off all the

people who were being paid a per diem rate and we put on in their place a group

of public servants who didn't get any extra compensation. It isn't to their

advantage to prolong hearings because there is no extra benefit in it. They are

paid to be public servants and there is no extra benefit for being a member of

the Classification Appeals Board. They probably had a bit more flexibility as to

when they could meet, because their obligation was to the public service and it

was a public service board they were sitting on. So it was a total change in the

membership of the Board, a reduction in the cost of operating the Board of about

$200,000, perhaps, because the members were no longer paid.

MR. OLDFORD: The new Board, is that made up of

management people or a combination of management and -

MR. SMART: The new board is made up of management

people from the Public Service Commission - it is chaired by someone from the

Public Service Commission and has another senior member of the Public Service

Commission on it - and it includes management representatives from government

departments, from various agencies, and from hospitals.

MR. OLDFORD: So Classification and Pay makes the

original decision -

MR. SMART: Yes.

MR. OLDFORD: - and they are civil servants, and

then the new Board which is civil servants judges whether Classification and Pay

is right in their original decision.

MR. SMART: Yes.

MR. OLDFORD: Have you had any complaints from the

unions about that?

MR. SMART: Yes. When we changed the constitution

of the Board they originally had not a union representative on the board, but an

employee who just happened to be a former employee of NAPE. He sat on the Board

and was paid a per diem rate to sit on the Board. They originally expressed some

concern that when we reconstituted the Board we didn't have any union

representation. I would like to think that they've found, since they've been

before the Classification Appeals Board, that despite the fact that it is

comprised exclusively of management employees that the decisions being made are

certainly not all in management's favour, and are in the favour of the

employees, and there is not a bias. There may be a perception of one because it

is all management but I think the decisions of the Classification Appeals Board

would bear out that it is reasonably objective and unbiased and not swayed

toward management in any way.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of Hansard I did

interrupt Mr. Oldford and Mr. Smart, going back and forth to keep identifying

them, but I am sure Hansard can pick that out, I guess, Jack.

Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Basically, I just want to get a

clarification on something that was mentioned earlier during Mr. Oldford's

questions. With regard to employees with the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation who work on a seasonal basis, who are hired in the spring and

laid off in the fall, or vice versa. Are these considered temporary positions?

MR. SMART: Whether it is seasonal or temporary

could depend to a certain extend on the collective agreement you are dealing

with. People who are taken on and laid off under the general service agreement

would probably be considered temporary, and people taken on and laid off on the

same basis under the MOS collective agreement would probably fall under the

definition of seasonal. There is a difference in the terminology that is used in

the various collective agreements.

MR. WHELAN: Do temporary employees receive

benefits similar to, or the same as, those received by the regular civil

servant?

MR. SMART: Yes, the same benefits, on a pro rata

basis, of course, given that they do not work the full year, but they

participate in the pension plan, they participate in the group insurance plan,

they accumulate sick and annual leave, and whatever, during the periods they are

employed.

MR. WHELAN: So, when they are hired are they told

they are hired for a period of three months, six months, or a year, or do they

have to get up every morning and wait for a phone call to be called into work?

What is the situation?

MR. SMART: In most cases it would be you are

hired, your term of employment is for four months. Situations could come up

where because of various circumstances the department might say to the employee

before the four months is up, sorry, it is not going to last four months, it is

only three months, and by the same token situations could happen where the

department might say to the employee at the end of four months, we need you for

yet another month so you will get five months out of it, but generally speaking

they are told when they are hired, within reason. Someone hired for road work in

the summertime or forest fire suppression and so on could be told you are good

until some time in October. It may not be a specific date but they would have a

general idea, yes.

MR. WHELAN: I was trying to get a clarification

because I was approached by an individual some time ago with some concerns along

those lines.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Whelan, could you move closer to

the microphone, please?

MR. WHELAN: The individual had been working at one

of the hospitals for quite a period of time and he, for several years, had to

get up every morning and wait for a phone call to find out whether or not he was

going to work, or make sure he was in St. John's on the weekend in case he had

to work on the weekend. He indicated that he wasn't receiving any pension plan.

I had assumed that he was a temporary worker. Maybe there is another

classification -

MR. SMART: He could have been a temporary under

some of our contracts. If he was a nurse there is a category under the nurses'

collective agreement called casual employee, and that is exactly how they

operate. They are under no obligation to come if they are called either. It is a

different arrangement.

Under a number of our contracts - the hospital support

staff, and even the general service for that matter - if you are a new temporary

employee, recognizing we've a lot of temporary employees, some of them with a

lot of seniority, if you are very low down on the seniority list - if you took

for instance a labourer in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

who was hired on last year for the first time doing road work, I wouldn't be

surprised that this year when the rehiring started to take place, that he was

the type of person who might have to sit by the phone and hope: Today is the day

I get the call. Because there is that many ahead of them. That is generally how

I would see it happening.

MR. WHELAN: This particular individual, I was a

little bit surprised, because he has been going on for years like that.

MR. SMART: I've difficulty understanding that

arrangement as well, why that would happen.

MR. WHELAN: I figured it was unfair, unjust and

fairly cruel to put an individual through that type of thing. If he was on there

as temporary or whatever his category was. It was an unusual set of

circumstances to have an individual work under.

MR. SMART: It sounds unusual, which suggests to me

that there is something else to that that perhaps we don't know about. But that

would be unusual, yes.

MR. WHELAN: Basically I just wanted to get that

clarified. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Whelan. Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to go back to the discussion we had this morning and to seek some clarification

from you people regarding hiring by the Public Service Commission.

Basically I think, if I can state correctly, they were

saying that 10 percent possibly of all people that are recommended by the public

Service Commission as number one applicant for a job on the matter of merit to

work with the government, 10 per cent of these people who are number one get

rejected. A number of the rejections were primarily because of the language in

the contract of the collective agreements. I was wondering, can you fill us in

on that? Do you find that you have some problems with that, or does that occur?

MR. SMART: It certainly does occur. I can't say

whether it is 10 per cent or not, but it certainly does occur. It is because of

a provision in the general service collective agreement that goes back some

time. Basically what that provision says is where the candidates recommended for

a position are relatively equal - and generally speaking the Public Service

Commission would recommend three people - what the agreement requires is that if

those people are considered relatively equal than in order to determine which of

the three you should take there has to be a tie-breaker and that tie-breaker

would be seniority. You would make the decision then based on seniority. That

provision has been in the collective agreements for years.

A few years ago back in the late '80s, perhaps '89,

the question came up as to how do you go about determining what is relatively

equal? What does that mean? The collective agreement says; `where they are

relatively equal seniority shall be the governing factor.' The question was,

`how do we determine that?' There was a process negotiated in the collective

agreements back then that was called a secondary evaluation process. The intent

of that process was to figure out whether in fact candidates are relatively

equal and situations can come up. While the Public Service Commission would

recommend three candidates for a job, in order one, two, three, it is quite

conceivable that those three candidates are identical in terms of

qualifications, abilities and merit but they are put forward; one, two, three.

So from the unions point of view - and I don't think it was unreasonable at all

- they basically said, if you have three people, they are identical and three of

them can do the job equally well but one person has twenty years experience and

the other person has two years experience, why shouldn't the person with the

twenty years experience get the job? And that is how they got to the secondary

evaluation.

MR. LANGDON: But that wasn't the impression that

was left by the Public Service Commission today. From the line of questioning we

did this morning they were saying that there were instances when the number one

- when you tally up out of 500 - probably might have gotten 497, the second one

would have gotten 450, the next one would have probably gotten 400 but because

of seniority rather than merit and because of the unions collective agreements,

number two or number three got selected over number one. They are saying that

there are a number of instances, I don't know how many, where that person has

challenged that in a court through arbitration or what have you. So I was

wondering, how do you see that?

MR. SMART: Well there are certainly cases where -

let's say the number one candidate had 500 points, the number two candidate had

490 and the number three candidate had 450. There have certainly been cases

where someone has made the determination that there is really not that much

difference between 490 and 500. I mean these are pretty close, let's go with the

fellow with 490, that certainly happens.

There have been situations where in that same case the

person who got 450 points and didn't get selected grieved it, went to

arbitration, and the arbitrator may have in fact concluded: The fellow with 450

points is relatively equal to the fellow with 500 points; he should get the job

based on seniority, or she should get the job based on seniority. We've a number

of those that even after the arbitrator's decision we've appealed to the courts

and will fight it out in court. There is a whole series of different scenarios.

Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that

evaluations are done. Where other than the number one candidate is selected by a

department, I think it is fair to say that if they selected number two it was

because number two really wasn't that much different than number one. A

difference of a few points and on a 500-point scale, even a spread of say fifty

points, 450 versus 500 on a 500-point scale - it goes directly to the question

of: Where do you draw this line on relative equality.

MR. LANGDON: From the line of questioning this

morning, the feeling that I had was of course that the Public Service Commission

is quote unquote unbiased, completely non-political, what have you. I think it

probably looks at - I know they do - the Treasury Board Secretariat as being

political. I don't know if it sees itself in adversarial roles with you people,

in essence, but that is the type of feeling that I got. Obviously that is why I

think even with the temporary positions or what have you, that it wants to make

sure that quote unquote everything that is done with temporary and full-time

would be non-political. That is the feeling I got from the line of questioning

this morning.

MR. SMART: I'm not going to comment on the

political part. Mr. Kennedy might want to. Just to give you a bit of history on

this, to make sure it is not misunderstood. At the time when the secondary

evaluation process went into collective agreements, that basically establish a

process for figuring out which of the three candidates should be selected, at

the time that went in the conventional thinking in the public service, including

the Public Service Commission, was that the Public Service Commission

recommended three people for a job and that is where its role stopped; and that

a deputy minister had the freedom to select any one of the three as far as the

Public Service Commission was concerned. It was because of that freedom that the

deputy minister had to select any one of the three that the secondary evaluation

process was put in the agreement.

It wasn't until last year, or perhaps the year before,

that the suggestion was made that you always have to select number one and if

you do not take number one you are violating the merit principle. That is a

relatively new

interpretation of the Public Service Commission Act that did not

exist at the time that the secondary evaluation process went in contracts.

MR. LANGDON: And that is the impression they gave

this morning, that number one was the person of merit, and other than that they

were questioning the selection.

Just one more question if I could? A few years ago the

HAY classification system within the civil service, on Page 8 of the report we

have here, does that mean that government is now looking at that classification,

the HAY system? On Page 8, three quarters of the page down, the boards response,

where the Auditor General says "The board should develop formal guidelines in

the area of classification reviews. Such guidelines should include - " I will

not read the rest of it. Then it says, "In any event", and this is coming from

you, I would think, "we are currently in the process of considering introduction

of a new classification system, and your comments will be taken into

consideration during that process."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smart.

MR. SMART : That does not relate to the HAY system

as such although the whole classification business is always under review. The

HAY system is the classification system used for management employees. The

classification system we use for everyone else, which is 85 to 90 per cent of

the public service, is a system that has been in effect for twenty-odd years. It

is that system that we were referring to here when we said it is under review

and we are looking at the possibilities of a new system. It was that twenty-five

year old system as opposed to the HAY system which has been around for seven or

eight years.

MR. LANGDON: On the HAY system, as such,

management, it is certainly the impression of the unionized workers out there

that the management people, they set the scale as management dealing with

management, rather than in their situation you have union workers working with

management, so in a sense the perception is there that there is not so much

scrutiny and you can easily get a classification in management quicker than you

can with the worker. Is that a fair comment?

MR. SMART: I suggest you ask some of the

management people who try to get a reclassification as to how they feel about

that. I cannot quote the statistics off the top of my head, although Bert Meadus

might, but we did an analysis of how many requests for reclassification do we

entertain from management people versus bargaining unit people, and how many of

the requests that come from management people get approved compared to how many

of the ones that come from the bargaining unit people get approved, and you

would be very hard pressed to try to prove that the management people are

getting an easier time or more reclassifications than union people. In fact, I

suspect, you would probably find the opposite is true.

MR. LANGDON: I will leave it at that for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hewlett.

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Page 6

of our file here, there is a quote. It says: "`Departments are responsible for

determining the relevant classifications for temporary non-management

positions.'" Treasury Board is supposed to monitor these classifications. I

found that somewhat strange, because before my current situation I was an

employee of the Crown, I suppose, for fifteen years, in somewhat of a different

category, but still an employee. Does that mean that if you have work available

in department X for someone who would normally be a Clerk III to do that kind of

work, that department X, if they get some sort of approval for a temporary

position, can assign that as a Clerk II and can get the same work done at a less

cost? Is that what that means, in essence?

MR. SMART: The department has the authority with

respect to temporary employees to establish the classification, and there are

human resource professionals in departments who can make that determination. I

wouldn't be particularly concerned about a department classifying a position at

a Clerk II, we will say, when in fact the work to be done was at higher level of

Clerk IV, because the person who they would be classifying, who would be in a

bargaining unit position, would recognize very quickly: I'm not getting a fair

shake. They would come forward and say: I want my position reclassified from

Clerk II up to Clerk IV.

MR. HEWLETT: As a temporary employee they would

have rights, I guess through their union or whatever, to deal with that

situation in terms of once assigned a temporary position if they feel that it is

under-classified, that sort of thing, they have recourse in that situation, the

temporary employee?

MR. SMART: I would ask Bert Meadus, do they have

access to the Classification Appeals Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HEWLETT: Okay. I guess we are getting close to

the coffee hour. One quick question. Where does a promotion sit down and a

reclassification stand up? What is the difference? I see a piece in our notes

here where Treasury Board has a rather - and don't take this offensively -

sterile definition of what a promotion is. Then there is the general human

concept of what a promotion is in terms of some sort of elevation, not only in

money but in position, prestige, and so on and so forth. What is the current

view of your system with regard to what is a promotion versus what is a

reclassification?

MR. SMART: The issue I guess is - and you can get

technical in terms of what definition you want to use. We are discussing that

issue with the Public Service Commission. There is certainly a problem there and

we don't exactly see eye-to-eye on it.

The distinction that you are drawing is: a promotion

would be subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission, at least

that is the way the Public Service Commission works, that promotion should be

based on merit and so on.

The reclassification process is a situation where

someone is doing a job and they are doing that job now. They are actually doing

the work. They do not feel they are being compensated appropriately for the work

so they ask for a review to be done. That review determines that, yes, in fact

they are doing work at a higher level, and this could be something as simple as

somebody who is classified as Clerk Typist 11 but they are working with a

computer and as far as they are concerned they think they should be a word

processing equipment operator, given that is the work they are actually doing.

They have a review done and that confirms it. Yes, you should be a work

processing operator because that is the work you are now doing, and they are

reclassified. Now, they get an increase in pay and get an increase in stature, I

guess, because it is a higher paying position and so on, and that is what we

consider a reclassification.

The difficulty we have with the Public Service

Commission, I guess, is if you start to look at that as a promotion, within the

context of the Public Service Commission Act and what that defines a promotion

to be, do you start saying things like, the person can only move from a clerk

typist to a word processing equipment operator if the Public Service Commission

agrees with it, and if they concur with it, because they consider a promotion

under their act. That is the difficulty we have. The primary difficulty we have

is whether we like it or not, as the people running the classification system,

and whether the Public Service Commission likes it or not, this person is doing

the job now and all they are asking for is to be paid for the work they are

doing now.

That is generally what happens and we do have this

discussion ongoing with the Public Service Commission. It is a question of where

you draw the line. Some of these are very straightforward but then there are

others where the change in classification is so significant that you are moving

from a person in this sort of career path to a totally different thing in

another career path. There is certainly some merit to the suggestion that

perhaps that should not be considered a reclassification and that should be

considered abolishing this job, creating this one, and go through an advertising

process.

I think we will work that out with the Public Service

Commission in due course, but it is the different ones and the strange ones that

are the problem. Most of it is very straightforward, word processing equipment

operator 1 to word processing equipment operator 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hewlett.

MR. HEWLETT: There is one final point before I

yield. In the latter years of my last incarnation I was principal secretary in

the Premier's office and during the period I held that role I had two separate

chiefs of staff. One left to go to another job and so on. In one particular

instance I appointed a chief of staff from outside the office. In another

situation I appointed a chief of staff from the ranks of the existing executive

assistants to the Premier.

The person getting the position from outside the

office, I guess, is that considered filling a job

whereas the executive

assistant moving up to become the boss over the other executive assistants is

considered to be a promotion, or do I have a layman's description of the concept

and not a Treasury Board description?

MR. SMART: I am not sure that I understand the

question.

MR. HEWLETT: If an executive assistant moves up to

be chief of staff, is that a promotion?

MR. SMART: Yes.

MR. HEWLETT: In your concept it is?

MR. SMART: Yes, that is movement from this

classification that carries one pay range to a new position, or a different

position, which has a different position code number on it, technically, that

carries a higher pay range. That is a promotion. I would agree, while those

positions are not covered by the Public Service Commission Act, that is clearly

the type of promotion that is contemplated by the Public Service Commission Act.

When you take that position of executive assistant and change the duties of that

position a little bit, and it now becomes, instead of Executive Assistant I it

is Executive Assistant II, that is the difference of opinion we have with the

Public Service Commission, whether that is a promotion within the context of

their act, or whether that is really a reclassification and therefore outside

the scope of their act.

MR. HEWLETT: I took care of that problem by

calling it senior executive assistant and then, I guess, it is a promotion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hewlett. Mr. Penney.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before we leave that area of promotion, I understand

your definition of reclassification, and the distinction you make between

reclassification and promotion; I believe I do. I am looking at this now from

the perspective of a person who has been in business for over twenty years, and

when I gave somebody a promotion within my store it was not a reclassification.

It was a promotion, and I understood that and they understood that, and the

public understood that; there was no question about that, but I would like to

first ask the Auditor General, having heard your replies over the last couple of

minutes, if you would care to comment.

MS. MARSHALL: Basically, my concern centred around

the second category that Mr. Smart was referring to, and that is that when you

would take a position, someone would be in a position, and you would change the

duties and responsibilities so significantly that it would become a different

job altogether, and that person would automatically be placed in that job rather

than it going to competition. For example, you might have a secretarial position

with a person in it; you might add new duties to it and it might become a

financial analyst position. I would question then whether the incumbent in the

secretarial position should remain there when it becomes a financial analyst

position. So that is where my concern is centred around. I think that is the

type of reclassification or promotion that they are having some discussions with

the Public Service Commission on and I think that is the area that has not been

resolved yet but that is the area that I am concerned about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smart.

MR. SMART: I agree with the Auditor General, yes

that is the area that we are currently having discussions with the Public

Service Commission about and I think in due course we will resolve it. I mean

there is a happy medium here. Even in those cases there are situations where

they are not as straightforward as they may seem.

An example I give, that happened throughout the public

service, particularly since government brought in an affirmative action program

a number of years ago, is that you have people, females, who occupy

traditionally female dominated occupations; like secretaries, and concerted

efforts were made to move them from the secretarial positions into some other

areas, to give them some financial expertise, administrative or policy expertise

or whatever. So they intentionally move away from those female dominated

classifications and take on more work.

Now if at the end of this affirmative action cycle of

two or three years of taking on additional work and trying to climb the ladder

so to speak, if one of the outcomes of that is - we look at you at the end of

the day and say you are doing really good on this policy stuff or you are doing

really good on this financial analysis stuff, we are going to reclassify you.

You evolved beyond the position of Clerk Typist and you are now more of a

Financial Technician I and we reclassify them as that. That, from the Public

Service Commissions' perspective, could be justified as: this is a complete

change in career paths, it is a significant change in their classification and

it should be subject to the Public Service Commission. There is some merit in

that argument.

On the other hand, there is some merit in the argument

that says, why should that person who has put in an extra effort over the past

two or three years and has done extra courses, why should they now be put in a

position, because of that, that their old position is abolished, their new one

is created and they now have to apply for the position because that is the

potential end result? So even within the area where we are trying to reach

agreement with the Public Service Commission there are those that are strange

situations as well, primarily because of that affirmative action program.

MR. PENNEY: I understand your explanation but I

think what you have said is the difference between what would happen within

Treasury Board or government and what would happen within my business is that I

would give the employee the promotion and then tell him what I wanted him to do.

You are going to tell the person what you want him to do and after he has been

doing it, then you are going to give him the promotion?

MR. SMART: Or they would demand it.

MR. PENNEY: Yes, but you tell them what you want

them to do first, and after they have been doing it then you are going to say:

This is not a promotion now; this is just a reclassification,

whereas when I

give the individual this promotion first, it is no question this is a promotion,

and now because of the promotion here is what I want you to do.

MR. SMART: Yes.

MR. PENNEY: Okay.

In your reply to the board's response to the Auditor

General, it was suggested that the matter would be discussed with the Public

Service Commission and necessary revisions would be made to the

definitions.

Have there been any revisions to the

definitions?

MR. SMART: No, no.

MR. PENNEY: Can you give us any changes at all?

MR. SMART: No, we haven't completed the discussion

with the Public Service Commission yet. We produced some revised

definitions

that we have sent to the Public Service Commission. They have had a look at

them, and the dialogue is still ongoing, so we would rather complete the

dialogue with the Public Service Commission and see if we can't reach a

consensus on how to deal with this in the future, and then put forward to

Cabinet revised

definitions that we both agree on.

As Peter points out, the fact there has been no

chairman at the Public Service Commission has sort of delayed the process a bit,

and so on, but we are still having that discussion. I think we will resolve it

in due course, and at that point in time we will amend the regulations so that

we all understand it.

MR. PENNEY: This booklet of information that we

have with the Auditor General's Report and the board's response, the

section

here that is entitled `Classification Review Files', it says there was a review

of sixteen classification review files. I notice that the board's response was

that a sample size of sixteen is not sufficient, in your opinion, to reach a

conclusion. You are saying sixteen out of 23,000.

My question is to the Auditor General, or to one of

the members of her staff: When we discussed this type of sampling this morning

we were looking at a random sample of twenty out of 216. Now we are looking at

sixteen out of 23,000. First of all, could you confirm the figures, and could

you tell me how the sixteen were selected, what process was used, and do you

consider this to be representative?

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A little bit of clarification first, the 23,000

relates to individual positions, classified positions within government. Now,

not 23,000 were reviewed in any one year. In 1992-'93 there were approximately

1,500 reviewed, and our sample was based on that 1,500. Now even that 1,500 is a

little bit - again we have to clarify that - in that 1,500 are some group

reviews, so in our case, in our office, if we had Auditor III's reviewed, there

may be seven or ten, whatever number, reviewed, and the seven or ten number

would be included in the 1,500 but the process would only relate to that one

classification. So, within that 1500 there may only be 1000, 800 or 700. There

were no numbers available at the review date indicating how many review

processes were completed.

MR. PENNEY: So to suggest that it is sixteen out

of 23,000 is not in your opinion an accurate assessment?

MR. LOVEYS: Well, our intent was to review the

process in place in 1992-93 which related to the 1500 and not the 23,000.

MR. PENNEY: So are you satisfied then that the

sixteen were representative?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Loveys.

MR. LOVEYS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penney.

MR. PENNEY: That's it for the moment. I am

prepared to conclude that the sixteen were representative? Let us go back to

Page 9. It says, our review of sixteen classification review files, in two unit

files no evidence of any contact, in four bargaining unit files, limited

documented analysis, in three bargaining unit files, no current evaluation. Now,

if we accept the process of extrapolation you are looking at four with limited

documentation analysis, four as a percentage of sixteen is 25 per cent, and then

if this is in fact representative then we have 25 per cent of the 1500 that Mr.

Loveys referred to that would fit into the same category. Would you care to

comment?

MR. KENNEDY: I do not think offhand sixteen is

representative unless you know how that was arrived at and whether the survey

was scientifically developed and established to be free from bias and so on. I

do not think anyone can establish that. I do accept the point which is made

here, that there is a significant number of cases where there is not much

contact, if any sometimes, with individuals or their supervisors and so on. You

have to remember that many of the cases you deal with here are fairly routine in

nature.

There is an established classification system for many

positions in the clerical or secretarial series. There is quite a normal

progression which is available. People who are hired as clerk l eventually may

take on more duties and become a clerk 11. A clerk typist may become a word

processing operator when they become more proficient with some of the technology

which is available today and so on.

The governing document in this process is a revised

job description. That is what causes the review to take place. There is an

established system of job specifications within the bargaining units and these

are available, publicly available, available to all departments and so on, and

the reality is that in many cases there is not much need to contact people for

elaboration. There are many others that go on for months and months because

there is a continuing process of gathering more information and ensuring that we

properly understand what is before us and make a sound decision. I am certainly

not surprised and would consider it quite normal for there to be a significant

number of cases where minimal contact with departments is required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penney.

MR. PENNEY: Okay, I accept that.

Page 14. The Auditor General says: "The Board should

monitor adherence to Government personnel policies." We are talking about

adhering to personnel policies,

section 6(

c) of the act. The response from the

Board is: "Consideration will be given to development of a monitoring process.

This may be an area where the Office of the Auditor General could provide some

assistance...." What type of assistance did you have in mind? What exactly could

the Auditor General do to assist you?

MR. SMART: What we were referring to basically is

the Auditor General in the process of auditing Crown corporations, agencies,

school boards, hospital boards and so on is in a position, given that they are

in there anyway, to test compliance with certain policies. One of the things

they've done recently for instance is that they've tested compliance in some

agencies with government's restraint legislation. They've brought issues or

situations to our attention as a result of their audits in school boards where

school boards are paying mileage rates or meal rates in excess of what the

government provides.

On one hand, I guess, the fact that they brought it up

is critical of us for not finding it ourselves, but on the other hand it is

assistance to us when the Auditor General actually goes in and looks and finds

these things and brings them to our attention and then we can take the

corrective action. That was basically the point that we were making. When the

Auditor General is in a hospital board and is doing an audit, or in a school

board, if areas where the school board or the hospital board is not complying

with government policy comes to their attention, we would certainly appreciate

having it brought to our attention. Then we would be in a position to take the

corrective action.

MR. PENNEY: I see the Auditor General nodding as

you are replying. I wonder if she would care to comment (inaudible).

MS. MARSHALL: Yes. We do pass the information on

to Treasury Board when we do come across personnel issues that we feel it should

be aware of. We were also interested in having Treasury Board set up its own

systems and procedures, because our audits are not done on an annual basis, and

of course most of the work is done on a test basis also. We were interested in

seeing it put in some sort of systems and processes, and possibly have its

internal audit division go out and do some spot checks also to ensure more

thorough coverage.

We do find a notable number of exceptions to the human

resource policies, and you are aware of some that we've discovered in the school

boards and the hospitals. It would be worthwhile if Treasury Board had those

processes in place also.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you. One last question, Mr.

Chairman. The human resource management information system, has that system been

fully implemented? Are we on target? I noticed here when the Auditor General was

doing her report she says on page 16: "At Report date, some six years after the

Steering Committee was established, the development of the... project is

continuing. Implementation is now scheduled for April 1994...." Could you

elaborate?

MS. HOLDEN: The Steering Committee was originally

set up to look at human resource management, and in particular we started out to

look at leave management. When we got going we realized of course that in

government there were not one but three payroll systems operating, and all three

of those, while using the same software, weren't at all compatible. There wasn't

even a standard record. So instead of leave management it was: Let's get started

here with an employee record, for beginners. Back to square one and the

development of a standard record, and the functionality for an employee record.

Then of course the next part of the problem we

realized was that we didn't have the latest software packages. We were way

behind. Bringing the thing up to date was an enormous challenge. Believe me,

this thing has taken on a life of its own. To the lay person out there looking

at it the question: Why has this taken so long?... is certainly a legitimate

one. From my perspective, and the perspective of those of us who have worked

long and hard on this, it has been an incredible challenge.

I'm delighted to tell you that in fact as we speak the

January 22 payroll will be decentralized to all departments and we will be able

to get on with many other pieces of this particular system. Because the human

resource management information system is not a system, it is a bunch of

subsystems. We have to start with the basics - the employee record and the

decentralized payroll, and the position management system - and move it on from

there.

We've had all of the departments - or a lot of the

departments - involved, and we've had considerable consultation, so this has

been a joint process. One that, like everything else, there is a costing,

involving and consulting and making sure that people are going in fact to get

what they want. At the end of the day I believe we will be really happy with it

and light-years ahead of where we were six years ago.

While in the strictest sense of the word - some may

call it a delay - quite frankly, I have to tell you it has been an opportunity,

and one that has had tremendous challenges. As of January 22 we will be

decentralizing, and by the end of this fiscal year phase one will be in and we

will be going on from there.

MR. PENNEY: I'm really pleased that I asked that

question to have given you the opportunity to make that presentation.

MS. HOLDEN: It is a really exciting project and

one that has been a tremendous challenge, I will tell you.

MR. PENNEY: For the record I will say, for the

benefit of all my colleagues here, the question was unsolicited. Thank you very

much.

MS. HOLDEN: You are welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Finished, Mr. Penney? We are overdue

for coffee. Do we have many questions left over here? Do we want to have coffee,

or do we want to wrap it up and then have coffee? I know that officials in the

Treasury Board have other things they are anxious to get back to. If it isn't

worth having a coffee break and coming back....

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: We wouldn't want to be accused of

letting them off too easily, but none of us want to waste our time being here if

we've satisfied most of our concerns. So we will wrap it up here?

WITNESS: Wrap it up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let me just ask one quick

question. There are several things I would have brought in, but they are minor

points. You tell us, Mr. Smart, 2,300 are in temporary positions, about 10 per

cent of the general public service, I think you said, is it, or 1,600 out of

10,000 in government departments are temporary positions. Those are 1,600

positions that are not filled through the Public Service Commission system. They

are not interviewed; they are not screened to the same degree. They don't go

through the same rigorous testing, in other words they are appointed by

somebody.

MR. SMART: Well, no, I wouldn't say that. The

testing and screening, in most of those cases, while not done by the Public

Service Commission, I don't think it's fair to say that these people are just

appointed without a screening interview and official recruitment process. In

fact, our collective agreements, and the primary agreement here in government

departments would be the general service agreement, that agreement stipulates

that any position that is going to be in excess of twelve weeks duration has to

be advertised, and all the people in the bargaining unit have to have an

opportunity to apply, and that goes through an interview screening process. The

departments would generally use the same type of process and the same type of

scoring system that the Public Service Commission would use, so there is a

process and there is a significant restriction in terms of the collective

agreement on how much of a free hand a department has in appointing people to

positions. I guess you could get away with it up to twelve weeks, but after

twelve weeks the shop steward is going to be knocking on your door saying:

Advertise the position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, but undoubtedly there is a

significant number of these that are less than twelve weeks; they might be a

month or two months in duration.

MR. SMART: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Regardless of that, they are

positions that are filled without the normal process of the Public Service

Commission. They are open to some sort of abuse, perhaps, if one wished. People

can be put into those positions from outside of the public service, without

having to go through the normal process. They could be there, then, for up to

two months. The position could then be advertised for a permanent position. That

person who is there for two months, because they have been there for two months,

are now eligible to apply as an internal person. Because they have been there

for two months, if we get into this system in the collective bargaining

agreements whereby seniority governs, so that person and another person outside

who didn't get appointed as a temporary person and therefore couldn't apply

internally, even if they could apply, probably wouldn't get the job because the

other person would have a two month seniority.

MR. SMART: Conceivably, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. SMART: Just on a point of clarification,

though, in terms of how easy it is to appoint people to positions that are less

than twelve weeks, given the restraint and the downsizing we have gone through,

before a department ever gets to the point that it can hire someone for less

than twelve weeks, they first have to go to the list of laid-off people in that

department and if the Department of Education and Training wanted to hire a

Clerk Typist I we will say, just for a six-week period, well, they are under no

obligation to advertise that because it is less than twelve weeks; they are

certainly under a contractual obligation to go to their list of laid-off

employees and find out if they, in the past two years have laid off any Clerk

Typists I or anyone else who is qualified to be recalled to do that work, so

that hurdle has to be gotten over as well; the recall provisions in the

collective agreement have to be gotten by as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Do you

have any final statements, Auditor General, anybody have any final statements?

That being the case, let me thank all the witnesses from the Treasury Board and

from the Auditor General and her staff, members of the Committee and our staff

for your diligence, for your searching questions, for your thorough answers,

honest answers, detailed answers and we look forward to perhaps having an

opportunity on some future occasion having you back again to pursue other areas

of Treasury Board. No doubt, there are many areas. Let me ask you one question,

I want to check and make sure there are no news media here and I would say it

somewhat facetiously, but I want to ask a question of Noreen, whom I always

credit as being one of the prime movers and shakers and authors of our

affirmative action program: When you train some of these secretaries to get into

management positions, do you train some labourers to become secretaries?

MS.HOLDEN: Labourers are not as interested in

becoming secretaries as, well, secretaries are in becoming labourers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you very much.

MS. HOLDEN: However, we are working to try and

change that and we do have some male secretaries in fact, in the public service

today, you will be pleased to know, they are a minority but we are working on

trying to increase their numbers and of course, once we have 50 per cent women

in the public service, we will try to help everyone else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have just seen an excellent

justification of why the female population should be promoted within the public

service. Thank you very much.

The meeting stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at

9:30.