Building a Diverse and Inclusive Public Service: Final Report of the Joint Union/Management Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion

Observations

Current representation rates in the public service for the 4 designated groups under the Employment Equity Act (EEA) are determined by comparing the number of employees who self-identified with these groups in 2015 with estimates of workforce availability (WFA).

WFA estimates were calculated using 2011 Census data. Using this approach, there are currently no statistical representation gaps for the EEA groups in the public service as a whole. Over the last 15 years, the statistical representation of EEA-designated groups has steadily increased and, in some instances, exceeded WFA estimates.^{Footnote 43} It should be noted, however, that there are pockets where significant representation gaps exist:

• some classification groups
• some departments
• some regional offices

Subsequent WFA estimates may indicate some changes in the representativeness of the federal public service.^{Footnote 44}

It is important to note that statistical representation is regarded as the lowest level of achievement in recognizing diversity. Achieving WFA estimates is a floor, not a ceiling. However, many departments use WFA estimates as a target.

The public service uses WFA estimates to determine its overall representation requirements. However, it takes an extraordinarily long time to establish representation rates between Census periods, resulting in people management decisions being made with outdated information. WFA estimates include only Canadian citizens and does not include:

• permanent residents
• recent immigrants
• refugees
• others who also make up the people in Canada

Recommendations

To more effectively use statistics to diversify the public service, the Task Force recommends:

Recommendation 1: That Statistics Canada, in partnership with the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer and Employment and Social Development Canada, address gaps in workforce availability (WFA) estimates by:

• developing a methodology to update employment equity WFA estimates between censuses
• preparing demographic and WFA projections to reflect Canada’s diversity
• collecting Census data on LGBTQ2+ people to determine whether this community is under-represented in the workforce
• including in WFA estimates citizens and non-citizens who are living in Canada

Recommendation 2: That public service departments use demographic projections to establish diversity goals.

Observations

Outreach and recruitment are the processes and results of accessing the labour market to attract, assess and hire talent into the public service. Onboarding is the process of orienting and integrating new recruits into the workplace. Its activities include meeting, welcoming, training and supporting an employee into the public service or a new department or new role, over the course of their public service career.

To help with outreach at post-secondary institutions, the public service has put in place a Deputy Minister University Champion (DMUC) model, which targets specific universities in order to attract post-secondary students and graduates. To date, there has been no evaluation of what the DMUC approach has achieved. Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that it has had mixed success. Some suggest that focusing on universities can ignore important outreach and recruitment opportunities through other post-secondary institutions:

• that offer technical and other vocational skills required in the public service (such medical technicians and accommodation managers)
• where students from a broader diversity of backgrounds, identities and experiences may attend

A significant amount of recruitment into the public service does come from post-secondary recruitment and hiring, but there are gaps when it comes to hiring students from equity-seeking groups. When student recruitment rates are analyzed over a 3-year period (from the 2013 to 2014 fiscal year to the 2015 to 2016 fiscal year), data show that the proportion of students from EEA-designated groups hired through student programs for summer and part-time work fell below representation rates (where data is available). This outcome is despite a sharp increase in the overall number of students hired into the public service between the 2014 to 2015 fiscal year and the 2015 to 2016 fiscal year. Student recruitment data is not currently collected for LGBTQ2+ individuals.

Appendix E outlines trends in student recruitment into Canada’s public service between the 2013 to 2014 fiscal year and the 2015 to 2016 fiscal year for 3 core student recruitment programs:

1. the Federal Student Work Employment Program^{Footnote 45}
2. the Post-Secondary Co-op/Internship Program^{Footnote 46}
3. the Research Affiliate Program^{Footnote 47}

Despite some progress, there is more for the public service to do in order to attract and recruit the next generation of public service employees. Innovating to improve student recruitment will help the public service achieve important results for all people of Canada.

Currently, there are very few broad mechanisms for recruiting mid-career professionals who attend specialized advanced education and take training abroad or at Canadian institutions (for example, the Public Service Commission’s Recruitment of Policy Leaders Program). This gap is of particular concern to immigrants to Canada who may seek a Canadian education and still may not meet requirements for working in the federal public service, such as having recent and significant experience.

Two current initiatives have proven to be promising:

• The Indigenous Youth Summer Employment Opportunity (IYSEO) is a recruitment initiative that hires Indigenous post-secondary students for up to 15 weeks of enhanced learning in the National Capital Region, with emphasis on:
  • effective onboarding
  • learning and development sessions
  • mentoring
  • housing for those who live outside Ottawa-Gatineau
  • extracurricular and cultural events
  IYSEO engaged 99 participants and 20 departments in 2017.
• The Youth with Disabilities Summer Employment Opportunity (YwDSEO) is a recruitment initiative that in 2017 hired 19 post-secondary students who self-identify as having a disability for an introductory work program in the National Capital Region to:
  • foster positive early career experiences
  • develop a better understanding of career opportunities and support for accommodations available in the public service
  
  YwDSEO was modelled from the success of IYSEO and has the same core aspects (except housing). It also focuses on fully integrating these students into the workforce, with all accommodation needs being met in a timely manner.

To build on the success of these initiatives, information about their approach and results should be circulated widely within the public service and elsewhere. To achieve their full potential, these programs need to be expanded into regions outside the National Capital Region, and changes must be made based on participants’ feedback. For example, managers need to be trained on how to support participants, and central funding for accommodations must be established. It is important to provide requested accommodations for all employees prior to their employment in the federal public service.

In addition to having effective internal programs, to achieve a representative public service, the government should:

• partner with external organizations to attract a diverse spectrum of talent
• target recruitment efforts
• focus its recruitment on required future skills and competencies

Several not-for-profit organizations are excellent resources for hiring managers who seek to diversify their workplace. One such organization is LiveWorkPlay, which is a charity that specializes in helping intellectually challenged individuals find meaningful and productive work.

Mid-career recruitment is also an important consideration for the public service. Mid-career recruits bring unique skills and experience from other sectors that can strengthen public service innovation and productivity. Mid-career recruits can also be catalysts for organizational culture change. Canada has an active immigration program that attracts professionals who bring in-demand expertise and skills, but federal hiring programs do not target such professionals who are seeking mid-career opportunities.

Even though immigration accounts for two thirds of Canada’s population growth and almost half of Canadians will be an immigrant or be the child of one by 2036,^{Footnote 48} current staffing policies and practices create barriers that inhibit newcomers from integrating into the economy. For instance, only experience obtained in Canada in the previous 5 years is considered as relevant for hiring, which disproportionately disadvantages immigrants. This practice also impedes those who have taken extended time off work due to family obligations, notably women and Indigenous peoples.

There are other innovative initiatives being piloted as well. The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) is completing a pilot project on name-blind recruitment. Launched in April 2017, the project aims to:

• measure the impact that concealing an applicant’s personal information (for example, names, email addresses, employment equity information, countries of origin) has on the initial screening decisions reached by reviewers when compared with the traditional method of screening applicants (in which an applicant’s information is available)
• determine whether certain equity-seeking groups (for example, visible minority or Indigenous applicants) are differently affected by the choice of screening method

The project will hopefully provide insight into the effect of name-blind recruitment in Canada’s federal public service. Sixteen departments are participating, and, as of August 18, 2017, 29 staffing processes have been selected, with more to be confirmed and launched. The PSC will file an interim report on the pilot in September 2017 and a final report in December 2017.

Furthermore, few departments are well-equipped to proactively support new employees under their duty-to-accommodate obligations. The normal process requires the employee to express their need for accommodation, followed by an assessment (by Health Canada if it is medically related or by a contractor if it is not) in order to provide recommendations. Once management accepts these recommendations, procurement and installation occurs, depending on the request, which is often the responsibility of another department. This process often takes months and can take more than a year. Consequently, many employees with disabilities face heightened workload pressure while waiting for the tools they need to be fully productive.

Departments could consider a keeping desirable inventory (for example, desks that can be raised and lowered, ergonomically adjustable chairs, voice-activated software, ergonomic mouse and keyboard options, specialized computers and screens) to be kept on hand and provided to employees on short notice.

Recommendations

Effective recruitment and onboarding have an enduring impact on an employee’s perception of the public service. Insufficient planning and preparation often typify the recruitment onboarding experience for new recruits and may have lingering negative impacts. To improve recruitment and onboarding, the Task Force recommends:

Recommendation 3: That a centralized, systematic approach be developed for accessibility and accommodations, including:

• centralized funding for accommodations
• all-gender and accessible washrooms that reflect the needs of a diverse workforce and that are mandated as part of the government’s accommodation and retrofit program

Recommendation 4: That partnerships be developed and that diverse communities and other groups be involved in broadening outreach and recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission of Canada and other federal departments to include post-secondary institutions other than universities, such as:

• colleges
• polytechnic institutes
• Indigenous post-secondary institutions
• trade schools

Recommendation 5: That the Public Service Commission of Canada and departments develop targeted recruitment approaches modelled after current promising initiatives, such as the Indigenous Youth Summer Employment Opportunity and the Youth with Disabilities Summer Employment Opportunity, to deliberately attract individuals who have the diverse identities, abilities, education, skills, competencies and experiences to meet emerging public service needs.

Recommendation 6: That the government consider adopting name-blind recruitment practices for all external recruitment and internal staffing processes if results from the Public Service Commission of Canada’s pilot project show promise in safeguarding against unconscious bias and in promoting diversity and inclusion.

Recommendation 7: That the Public Service Commission of Canada and the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat undertake further work to identify and resolve systemic barriers to recruitment into the public service, including at mid-career, and strengthen employment equity and diversity and inclusion. Noted barriers include:

• the effort and costs involved in providing, often repeatedly, proof of foreign credentials, which is inequitably taxing for some equity-seeking groups
• meeting second official language requirements at the time of hire
• the fact that experience is considered relevant only if obtained in Canada in the past 5 years
• a lack of affordable and accessible child care
• no policy support for those suffering from domestic violence

Recommendation 8: That the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer communicate to hiring managers that degrees from colleges recognized as degree-granting institutions are to be treated in the same way as university degrees.

Recommendation 9: That diversity and inclusion, employment equity, and unconscious bias training be:

• mandatory for all new employees during onboarding
• integrated in meaningful ways in all required training
• integrated into staffing delegation and sub-delegation requirements

Recommendation 10: That onboarding practices be strengthened through an enterprise-wide, standardized approach that provides new employees with the support and training they need to integrate and be productive members of the team as quickly as possible. Best practices in onboarding programs include:

• mandatory diversity and inclusion, employment equity, and unconscious bias training
• identifying a departmental “buddy” who is at the same level as the new employee and who has a clear mandate to orient the employee
• introduction of the new employee to departmental and bargaining agent representatives to communicate that there are supports if employees have issues with employment equity or diversity, including harassment and discrimination
• information regarding employee networks, including any employment equity and diversity networks
• departmental mentors or sponsors at a more senior level who have a clear mandate and accountability to provide advice, support and guidance to employees who have specific career development needs

Observations

Changes to public service culture, career development, career support, talent management and opportunities for career progression must be made in order for the public service to strengthen its reputation as a workplace of choice.

Recent studies, including the Task Force’s diversity and inclusion survey, the Survey of Federal Indigenous Employees (2017), and the 2017 Public Service Employee Annual Survey (PSEAS), indicate that employees are dissatisfied with a range of people management policies and practices. Some of the main issues identified were:

• an opaque hiring process and nepotism in staffing
• ignorance and discrimination
• limited options for mobility
• little diversity among higher-level public service employees and few sponsors for aspiring leaders in equity-seeking groups
• stringent language requirements that disproportionately affect people in Canada whose first language is neither English nor French
• dissatisfaction with superiors (such as lack of trust, respect and support)
• insufficient opportunities for mentoring and professional development

The results of the 2017 Survey of Federal Indigenous Employees show a high level of concern among Indigenous employees regarding various barriers and people management practices, including the following:

• 59% of respondents indicated the need for “better understanding of competencies required to become a leader” as an important area of learning and development
• 40% reported that they were “thinking of leaving their current position,” and 30% responded that they were “not sure”
• 36% of respondents reported a lack of career advancement opportunities and 26% indicated limited opportunities for mobility as the biggest challenges that Indigenous employees have encountered while working for the public service

The 2017 PSEAS also highlights concerns related to people management. When respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement “overall, I like my job,” the rates of agreement varied among groups:

• 70% of employees with disabilities agreed
• 76% of Aboriginal employees agreed
• an overall average of 78% agreed

To address these and other concerns, respondents to the surveys highlighted and recommended various avenues for change. Their suggestions included:

• reworking the recruitment process by:
  • streamlining it
  • explaining what is expected of everyone in the process
  • guaranteeing that those who select candidates are diverse and have received training in diversity and inclusion
• undertaking better outreach through:
  • posting jobs on social media
  • collaborating with post-secondary institutions and community groups that serve diverse populations
• other considerations such as:
  • improving work-life balance
  • encouraging innovation
  • creating a welcoming atmosphere where differences are celebrated

Sponsorship, mentoring and coaching initiatives designed to develop employees are recognized as promising practices to:

• support career progression
• contribute to the attractiveness of the public service as a workplace

Mentoring and coaching are long-standing approaches to career development. Sponsorship, which is when a senior experienced leader lends their credibility and experience to support the development and advancement of a more junior person, is somewhat less familiar in the workplace.

Mentoring, coaching and sponsorship prospects are important at the start of a career and equally so at mid-career. Although supporting new recruits is very important, there is a need for deliberate talent management at mid-career, which will go far to help with culture change in the public service. Moreover, providing accommodations for people with disabilities is vital in attracting, retaining and supporting employees throughout their careers.

The diversity of languages in Canada is increasing, with the proportion of people whose first language is other than English or French growing consistently.^{Footnote 49} In the Task Force’s discussion forums and the dialogue circles that supported the Survey of Federal Indigenous Employees (2017), second language requirements were cited by equity-seeking groups as a barrier to hiring and career advancement. Thirty per cent of respondents to the online survey identified language-related concerns as barriers to diversity and inclusion, such as lack of competency in either or both official languages that inhibits promotions or career progression.^{Footnote 50}

There is broad understanding and support for the reality that the federal public service is officially bilingual. However, when employees report that achieving language requirements is a barrier, there is room for mitigating strategies to help address these concerns. In the context of evolving diversity, the public service must examine its language strategy and resources in light of the changing makeup of the population. Employee input and analysis of Public Service Employee Survey data speak clearly to the need to address issues of discrimination, harassment and bias encountered by employees from equity-seeking groups. Discrimination, harassment and bias are expressed, experienced and managed differently by each individual. However, the overall result is that individuals subjected to such negative behaviours have a clear feeling of workplace exclusion that can result in mental health issues and a desire to leave the public service.

The results from the 2017 PSEAS^{Footnote 51} paint a multi-faceted picture of the perceptions that employees in equity-seeking groups have regarding their workplace conditions and support. In broad strokes, women report experiences that are better than men’s related to diversity and inclusion concerns, such as:

• respect
• work-life balance
• job satisfaction
• stress levels
• awareness of mental health in the workplace

However, women are more likely to report suffering harassment than men (23% vs. 20%) and are equally likely to have been a victim of discrimination (12% for both men and women). Conversely, members of visible minorities, Indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities hold more negative views of almost all of these workplace concerns than their comparison groups (people who are not visible minorities and people who do not identify as Indigenous or as persons who have a disability), with the opinions and experiences of persons with disabilities diverging most from the dominant population. For instance, persons with disabilities are:

• twice as likely to report being harassed in the past 2 years than people who do not have a disability (40% vs. 20%)
• nearly 3 times as likely to report discrimination (32% vs. 11%)

Members of all the equity-seeking groups report more instances of harassment and discrimination in the 2017 PSEAS than in the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey (see Tables 1 and 2).

Furthermore, agreement with the statement “my department or agency treats me with respect” is the lowest for people with disabilities (61%) and Aboriginal peoples (70%) in the 2017 results, compared with the surveys in 2008, 2011 and 2014. The same is true for the assertion “Overall, I like my job,” which was lower in 2017 than in 2008, 2011 and 2014 for people with disabilities, members of visible minorities and Aboriginal peoples.

Overall, the results of the 2017 PSEAS, which was this survey’s first iteration, reveal that significant work is still needed to improve workplace conditions and support for equity-seeking groups. Moreover, the decrease in job satisfaction coupled with the increase in instances of discrimination and harassment are causes for serious concern.

It is also important to recognize how non-work experiences can prevent individuals from performing optimally. Such situations disproportionately affect equity-seeking groups, especially those who have intersectional identities.^{Footnote 52} For example, women shoulder the majority of child-rearing responsibilities, which, in the absence of affordable and accessible child care, can negatively impact their careers.^{Footnote 53} Furthermore, more women suffer intimate partner violence than men (people with disabilities, Indigenous people and LGBTQ2+ people are also disproportionately affected), which inhibits work performance and results in lost productivity.^{Footnote 54} However, policy mechanisms to support employees affected by these situations are unsatisfactory and lacking.

Coordinated efforts to address diversity and inclusion concerns would benefit from a formalized structure that is informed by approaches used to implement previous related initiatives, including the Centre of Expertise on Mental Health in the Workplace.

Recommendations

All public service employees should benefit from opportunities to develop and advance in their careers. Whatever the area of work, appropriate training, development and career management is relevant, and employees should be made aware of these opportunities through regular communications. Too often, new recruits are led to believe that anyone can reach the pinnacle of public service leadership, when in reality this is not happening.

Further, there is frequently the perception of favouritism and discrimination associated with access to training and development opportunities. To mitigate retention and career management challenges, the Task Force recommends:

Recommendation 11: Identifying and implementing actions to retain individuals who have diverse skills, competencies, experiences, identities and abilities.

Recommendation 12: Taking deliberate action to establish an integrated approach to training, development and managing talent, which includes mentoring, coaching and sponsorship by senior leaders.

Recommendation 13: Reviewing the current approach and the allocation of resources to language training, with consideration of the public service’s commitment to bilingualism, to:

• ensure a fair, transparent and equitable approach to accessing language training and development, based on the needs of employees, including those in unilingual positions
• ensure value and results from service providers
• ensure that culturally sensitive language training options are provided
• identify and implement best practices in second language attainment and maintenance
• increase language training opportunities that address the double disadvantage faced by individuals whose first language is neither English nor French

Recommendation 14: Recognizing, valuing and rewarding individuals for their knowledge and use of languages other than English and French when serving Canada’s people or representing Canada domestically or abroad.

Recommendation 15: Introducing non-imperative staffing for equity-seeking groups to prepare them to achieve official bilingual proficiency in order to access leadership positions, commensurate with their talents and abilities.

Recommendation 16: That selection boards and committees that assess job candidates are representative of at least 2 equity-seeking groups beyond gender.

Recommendation 17: That everyone who assesses job candidates (on selection boards or committees) receive specialized training in:

• employment equity
• diversity and inclusion
• unconscious bias
• intercultural effectiveness and awareness

Multiple stakeholders (for example, the Public Service Commission of Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Canada School of Public Service) should collaborate on creating this training.

Recommendation 18: Revamping the current infrastructure for supporting and promoting diversity and inclusion in the public service, notably the Employment Equity Champions and Chairs Committees and Circle, in favour of establishing an infrastructure that is:

• centralized
• funded
• strategic
• focused on results and transformation
• accountable through a Centre of Expertise on Diversity and Inclusion

Recommendation 19: That the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer receive adequate financial and human resources to establish a viable, effective and collaborative Centre of Expertise on Diversity and Inclusion to support the federal public service with developing and implementing measures to improve diversity, inclusion and employment equity in the workplace. Its responsibilities would be to:

• determine ways to reduce and eliminate the stigma in the workplace that is too frequently associated with mental health issues and other prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act
• determine ways to better communicate discrimination issues in the workplace, and ensure that tools such as existing policies, legislation and directives are available to support employees who face such challenges
• review practices in other jurisdictions and of other employers that might be instructive for the public service
• outline any possible challenges and barriers that may impact the successful implementation of best practices for diversity and inclusion
• provide clear direction about oversight and authority in the Treasury Board policies and directives
• work with the Public Service Commission of Canada to identify and remove systemic barriers in staffing for equity-seeking groups
• work with other groups (for example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission) to ensure that the approach to achieving employment equity and diversity and inclusion is consistent, and that employment equity and diversity and inclusion remain a priority in the public service

Recommendation 20: That a senior management guidance committee comprised of bargaining agents and employer representatives provide support to the Centre of Expertise on Diversity and Inclusion and be consulted in developing the Centre’s mandate.

Recommendation 21: Establishing an accountability framework for departmental champions and chairs, including:

• mandatory training in diversity and inclusion, employment equity and unconscious bias
• accountability to deputy heads for effectiveness and results incorporated into their formal role and their performance management agreements
• access to financial resources

Recommendation 22: That being named a departmental champion be seen as a commitment to the department’s vision for diversity and inclusion.

Recommendation 23: That departmental champions:

• be selected with input from employees and bargaining agents
• embrace the vision of a diverse and inclusive public service
• engage unions and employees at all levels
• raise awareness of diversity and inclusion
• report their activities publicly to ensure commitment and consistency
• ensure that departmental committees for diversity and inclusion include bargaining agent representatives selected by bargaining agents

Observations and recommendations

Racism, discrimination and harassment in all their forms have been identified as workplace challenges in Canada’s public service. Results from the 2017 PSEAS and the Public Service Employee Survey for more than a decade provide evidence that the public service has challenges in welcoming and including members of emerging and long-standing equity-seeking groups. Efforts to address racism, discrimination and harassment in the public service have not been centralized, coordinated or designed to measure results. To address these gaps, the Task Force recommends:

Recommendation 24: Undertaking deliberate, centralized and measurable action to address racism, discrimination, harassment and bias in the public service, including:

• establishing, measuring and reporting on ongoing deputy head accountabilities for:
  • ensuring a safe space to report issues of discrimination, racism and harassment
  • reporting on how workplace complaints are addressed
• naming a qualified senior-level officer who reports to each deputy head and is impartial and independent of labour relations units and human resources units, and whose responsibility it is to:
  • track incidences
  • be accessible to confidentially help employees and bargaining agents who have concerns related to racism, discrimination or harassment to access the appropriate avenue of resolution
  • facilitate access to the deputy head when needed
• ensuring timely resolution of allegations and issues of racism, discrimination and harassment
• reporting annually on incidences and resolutions

Recommendation 25: Establishing ongoing commitments in performance management agreements that hold deputy heads, executives and managers accountable for achieving employment equity and diversity and inclusion goals, and for tracking progress on these objectives.

Observations

The legislative and regulatory framework that governs the public service staffing regime has evolved since the Public Service Modernization Act was introduced in 2005. Citing as its rationale the maturity of the public service and the lessened need for oversight of hiring managers, under PSC’s the New Direction in Staffing, a new Appointment Framework was implemented in April 2016. Under this framework, the PSC is implementing a renewed oversight model, where it undertakes a system-wide review of the staffing system every 2 years. Deputy heads are now responsible for monitoring and enforcing the integrity of staffing in their organization.

With this increased flexibility, the PSC has also changed its audit approach, moving from system-wide entity audits to periodic issue-specific reviews of potential concern for the integrity of the system as a whole. Deputy heads are now responsible for monitoring and enforcing the integrity of staffing in their department. The PSC now concerns itself exclusively with issues that may be having a system-wide impact (the PSC’s oversight mandate is discussed in the Leadership and accountability section of this report).

The Task Force heard concerns that the self-monitoring and self-correcting aspects of the current staffing regime limit opportunities to identify and proactively eliminate systemic barriers to achieving public service representativeness.

As demonstrated by the results of the Survey of Federal Indigenous Employees (2017) and during the Task Force’s consultations on diversity and inclusion, there is a lack of confidence in the fairness of staffing processes. There is also a perceived lack of trust that hiring managers are executing their people management responsibilities consistently in support of diversity and inclusion.

The issue of how partially or fully pre-qualified pools are used in the staffing system arose repeatedly in the Task Force’s consultations and in the Survey of Federal Indigenous Employees (2017). In both, participants indicated that members of equity-seeking groups qualify for positions after overcoming several barriers and then languish in pre-qualified pools at disproportionately high rates, with no recourse.

Additional barriers identified by employees include:

• “right fit” assessments, which they assert are being used to disqualify candidates who meet all other requirements
• the absence of opportunities to discuss and resolve the difficult issues of bias and discrimination
• the fear of reprisal that prevents employees from raising issues of discrimination and harassment

The results of the Public Service Employee Survey consistently validate these concerns.

Recommendations

The current public service staffing regime needs to strengthen its efforts to proactively support diversity and promote inclusion. Elements of existing legislation, regulations and policy that pertain to the use of employment equity flexibilities (such as limiting or expanding the area of selection to employment-equity designated groups, establishing and applying employment equity, or using it as a criterion for non-advertised staffing) to achieve a diverse and inclusive workplace should be promoted to hiring managers. The Task Force therefore recommends:

Recommendation 26: Applying the diversity and inclusion lens to staffing and people management policies, programs, services, practices and workplace assessments.

Recommendation 27: That deputy heads institute rigorous human resources planning to:

• ensure diversity and employment equity representativeness within their departments
• monitor the representativeness of appointments, including all acting appointments
• monitor the use of pre-qualified pools through the diversity and inclusion lens

Recommendation 28: That the Public Service Commission of Canada perform periodic system-wide thematic audits on the use of “right fit” criteria and existing employment equity flexibilities under the Public Service Employment Act, including:

• limiting or expanding the area of selection to employment-equity designated groups
• establishing and applying employment equity as an organizational need
• using employment equity as a criterion for non-advertised processes

Accountability is “the obligation to demonstrate that responsibility is being taken both for the means used and the results achieved in light of agreed expectations.” Effective accountability frequently includes the disclosure of results in a timely manner

Observations

Specific consequences of poor people management that are identified through the MAF, surveys and other means are unclear. Also unclear are the levers used to encourage departments and deputy heads to take action when areas of concern are identified.

The following have raised concerns that progress in supporting diverse and inclusive workforces and workplaces is at risk:

• increased staffing delegation to deputy heads
• curtailed central agency support for employment equity as a result of reductions in resources
• reduced central agency oversight of policy and practices and support for their implementation

Deputy heads are fully accountable for monitoring and overseeing the representativeness of employment equity groups, regionally and at all levels, in staffing processes and in employee training and development. However, it is uncertain whether adequate resources, funds, expertise and time are dedicated to such oversight.

Regarding the Employment Equity Champions and Chairs Committees and Circle for visible minorities, persons with disabilities and Indigenous peoples, it is unclear how these committees solicit employee participation and contributions.

With oversight now focused on system-wide patterns instead of scrutiny of how each department is performing in various areas, including employment equity, the Task Force believes employment equity oversight has been reduced. Currently, there is little information about departments’ progress on diversity and inclusion goals because central agencies gather minimal information on diversity, inclusion and employment equity due to delegation of authority to departments and deputy heads.

There continues to be a need for policies that include requirements on issues such as employment equity, harassment, duty to accommodate, telework and childcare that provide clear direction and clear outcome requirements, and that lay out the accountability and consequences of failing to meet requirements.

Oversight remains important so that employees are not discouraged from addressing and reporting issues such as:

• conscious and unconscious bias and discrimination in staffing
• training
• opportunities for work assignments at an employee’s home department or at another department
• other career development opportunities

Recourse options are limited to the following cases for staffing complaints:

• only a candidate who is within the area of selection and who participated in the advertised process can file a staffing complaint, and only after a candidate has been selected for appointment
• abuse of authority in the application of merit
• abuse of authority in the choice of process (advertised or non-advertised)
• failure to assess the complainant in the official language of their choice

The fact that only these options exist limits the ability of candidates to file complaints regarding other situations that may be perceived as unfair in the staffing process.

In its consultations and engagement, the Task Force heard concerns from public service employees about how the PSC’s New Direction in Staffing is adversely affecting their career progression and career opportunities. This direction has been in place for less than two years, and there have been no studies done to examine its impact. The Task Force stresses that there is a need to track the impact and results of the PSC’s New Direction in Staffing from an employment equity perspective and with a diversity and inclusion lens to determine whether the concerns that the Task Force heard are systemic.

When the review of the Public Service Employment Act, the Financial Administration Act, and other related legislation and policies comes up, it will be important to consider an employment equity perspective and apply a diversity and inclusion lens for this legislation, particularly regarding how delegation and the use of departmental discretion is affecting outcomes for employment equity and diversity and inclusion goals.

It would be valuable to review the staffing complaint process for systemic barriers, such as:

• informal processes of mediation
• limited criteria to file a complaint
• fear of retaliation
• available remedies

Recommendations

The Task Force recommends:

Recommendation 29: That the government implement legislation to support a diverse and inclusive public service within a reasonable time frame (2 to 4 years) that will include parameters to establish a Commissioner for Employment Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, modelled after the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Recommendation 30: That the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) continue to be the central agency responsible for strategic direction and policies related to diversity, inclusion and employment equity, and that it be provided the necessary resources and a strengthened mandate to:

• conduct a deeper analysis of employment equity and intersectionality for OCHRO’s annual report on employment equity, with the National Joint Council being consulted on data elements for this analysis
• establish and operate a Centre of Expertise for Diversity and Inclusion to promote a more diverse and inclusive public service

Recommendation 31: That a focused accountability mechanism be developed to measure the government’s work and progress on diversity and inclusion, including the work and progress of deputy heads, executives and managers. The mechanism can complement the Management Accountability Framework (MAF), but the MAF on its own is insufficient.

Recommendation 32: That the Public Service Commission of Canada strengthen its monitoring of diversity, inclusion and employment equity as they relate to staffing, ensuring that they receive due attention as part of a general staffing audit (for example, staffing processes would be required to report to the Commission on why employment equity criteria were not used where a gap existed).

Recommendation 33: That the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s accountability mechanism be strengthened so that it can measure work and progress on employment equity and diversity and inclusion, including:

• specifying what information the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and departments must provide for the Commission’s audits of progress on employment equity
• a mechanism for bargaining agents to initiate an audit when non-compliance with employment equity requirements occurs

Recommendation 34: That adjudicators of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board:

• be diverse and representative of Canada’s population
• be knowledgeable and trained in labour relations, employment equity, diversity and inclusion, and the evolving human rights context

Recommendation 35: That in anticipation of the review of the Employment Equity Act (EEA) as required by legislation, appropriate foundations be put in place, including:

• clarifying roles and responsibilities by strengthening the enforcement and accountability provisions in the EEA so that it is clear what the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Public Service Commission of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission are required to oversee, monitor and report regarding their respective obligations under the EEA, including:
  • employment systems review
  • employment equity plans
  • collaboration and consultation with bargaining agents on developing, implementing and revising employment equity plans
• updating data collection to reflect the evolving human rights framework, including for LGBTQ2+ groups when census data is available
• reviewing the lexicon for identifying groups to modernize terminology for visible minorities and Indigenous peoples

Recommendation 36: That each department establish a joint union-management consultation committee on employment equity, diversity and inclusion that is co-led by unions and management, with agendas and minutes published on departmental intranet sites.

Contributing factors

Participants indicated that effective workplace policies, including those that promote employment equity, contribute significantly to a diverse and inclusive public service. As in the online survey, respondents emphasized the need for fair people management practices.

Respondents also indicated that new public service employees (including students) need to be given meaningful work to enrich their work experience in the public service.

It is worth noting that the recommended strategies to effect change were different in the discussion forums than the online survey. The latter suggested consequences for infractions or lack of implementation, while the former recommended training in cultural awareness, sensitivity and unconscious bias to create culture change and to further promote diversity and inclusion.

Considerations

• How consistently do we apply our policies? How can we truly examine this?
• How might our practices adversely affect particular groups? Are we providing the intended benefits?
  • How and from whom can we collect feedback about repercussions and gaps?
• How can we further promote mutual trust, equitable treatment and non-discrimination in everyone’s daily experience of the workplace?
• How can we be more accepting of differences in values, communication styles and behaviours from people who have different backgrounds?
• Who is knowledgeable about such differences? Who can help us to provide input about barriers and opportunities?
• What other approaches can we try in order to reach additional groups?
• When creating advisory groups, how can we reflect our commitment to inclusion?
• How can our staffing and talent management decisions create teams that are (more) diverse and inclusive, and that bring a range of skills, competencies, strengths and approaches to work?
• How can we create meaningful opportunities for greater involvement for diverse individuals?
• How can we better leverage the knowledge, expertise and lived experience of staff who have insight into these barriers and groups, and involve them in design and review processes?
• How can we ensure that diverse groups and inclusion are considered from the inception of a program, as opposed to adapting practices afterward for diversity? How can we integrate diversity and inclusion throughout the process?

Considerations

• From where have I learned my assumptions? How can I ensure that what I believe is true to life?
• How do my own intersecting factors of diversity^{Footnote 66} cause me to view other people and issues?
• How can we guarantee that the attitudes and norms of the organization and workforce do not limit options from being considered or prevent people from being involved and contributing?
• How can we ensure that our policies and programs affect everybody equally and/or are neutral in impact?

Considerations

• How can we keep ourselves up-to-date on new insights about diversity and inclusion, and about the lived experiences of diverse people?
• How do we integrate such learning into our practices and be accountable and transparent to our stakeholders and interest groups?
• How can we help others (organizations and employees) leverage diversity and inclusion in their own workplaces to create healthier, more open and better-performing environments?
• How can we better use recent research and data to understand how our policies might affect groups differently?
• How can we ensure that certain groups do not have an unnecessary burden or added duty concerning our programs?
• How do we improve our monitoring and evaluation processes? Can stakeholder groups be involved? How do we measure progress on identified barriers?

Considerations

• How can we further support inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility? How can we engage others to help us find solutions to eliminate barriers, especially those that affect minority groups?
  • How can we follow through with our commitments to these principles in all aspects of our work (for example, in staffing, promotions, retention, partnerships and procurement, and with suppliers)?
• How clearly do we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive, barrier-free work environment that supports the well-being of all employees? How can we promote and publicize this commitment further?

Figure I.1 - Text version

Figure I.1 consists of two components. The one at the left comprises three circles that surround a central circle. The component at the right consists of a large circle that has various sub-components.

The component at the left is called “Diversity in the public service.” It has a central circle that has the words “Diversity and inclusion” inside it. Three other circles surround the central circle and have words inside them that read “Our people,” “Our programs” and “Our policies and practices,” respectively.

The component at the right is called “Diversity in Canada in an evolving concept.” It consists of one large circle that is split into three segments that are called “Human rights,” “Social and economic context” and “Employment context,” respectively. A graphic of an individual is in the middle of this large circle and is labelled “Individual.”

The “Human rights” segment of the large circle contains the following words to describe aspects of diversity: “age,” “sex,” “religion,” “marital status,” “colour,” “sexual orientation,” “pardons,” “gender identity and expression,” “ethnic or national origin,” “race,” “genetic characteristics,” “disability” and “family status.”

The “Social and economic context” segment of the large circle contains the following words to describe aspects of diversity: “education,” “geographic location,” “income,” “personal habits” and “work experience.”

The “Employment context” segment of the large circle contains the following words to describe aspects of diversity: “merit,” “management status,” “work location,” “employment status,” “work content and field,” “unionization,” “functional level and classification,” “department, unit and group,” and “professional occupation.”

There is an outer ring surrounding the circle labelled “National and international context.” It lists the following as aspects of this context: “technology,” “legislation,” “demographics,” “official languages,” “political system,” “economy,” “national values” and “reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.”