Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 12, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:08 p.m. to examine cases of alleged discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service and to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity for minority groups are being met.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will be dealing with our draft budget now that internal economy is ready to proceed. As soon as we hear from our witnesses and put our usual questions to them, we will turn to the budget. It is the budget that you have already gone through and studied; now we need to formally pass it.
I now welcome our witnesses from the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC): Linda Gobeil, Senior Vice- President, Policy Branch, Paula Green, Director General, Equity and Diversity, and Dan Coffin, Director General, Resourcing Services.
We are here to examine cases of alleged discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service and to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity from minority groups are being met.
I understand that the president is away and could not be here. We would like you to start with an opening statement and then we will go to questions.
We are interested in getting any updates on achievements on dealing with the problems that we previously discussed with Maria Barrados, particularly how to not only have movement in the public service to the higher positions of minority groups, but also how to attract and keep well-qualified young people from minority groups.
We also discussed that sometimes women are talked about as a minority group. They are not a minority but often are treated as such. We would be interested in your comments with regards to more women in the management and upper management of the Public Service Commission as well as any other comments you wish to make.
[Translation]
Linda Gobeil, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are very pleased to appear before your committee this afternoon.
As you no doubt know, the Public Service Commission is an independent agency reporting to Parliament, mandated to safeguard the integrity of the public service staffing system and the political neutrality of the public service. We also provide staffing and assessment services to government departments.
Under the Employment Equity Act, the PSC is responsible for identifying and eliminating barriers against persons in designated groups that result from its systems, policies and practices in recruitment and staffing.
The act also requires the PSC to institute ``positive policies and practices'' that go beyond removing barriers to actively promote a more representative public service and to hasten progress in closing representation gaps for the identified groups.
[English]
The composition of the public service reflects the labour market availability for three of the four employment equity designated groups: women, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples. The gap, however, between the representation of visible minorities in the public service and their workforce availability continues to persist.
Recruitment is not keeping up with the growing proportion of visible minorities in our society. At the end of fiscal year 2004-05, there was a representation gap for members of visible minorities of 2.3 per cent. The workforce availability was 10.4 per cent but representation was only 8.1 per cent.
The last time we appeared before your committee, which was last October, we expressed concern about the lack of progress by departments in appointing visible minorities into the executive group. To help address this situation, we had initiated a generic competition open to the public for the members of visible minority groups to the EX-01 level.
I am pleased to inform you today that we have completed this process. We received 1,346 applications. Almost 700 were screened out by us because applicants were not a member of a visible minority group or had insufficient experience. We reviewed all remaining applications and sent more than 650 on to the 13 participating departments for further review. This response indicates that members of visible minority groups are interested in holding executive positions. The departments further screened the number down to just over 200.
Final candidates completed two rounds of interviews as well as an evaluation using the PSC's assessment tools and structure reference checks. We now have a pre-qualified pool of 41 visible minority executives at the EX-01 level which we made available to departments in March. Twelve already have a CBC-or-better language profile, demonstrating that bilingual candidates are available among members of visible minority groups.
Also, eight of these successful candidates are from outside the federal public service, demonstrating that individuals without substantive federal public service experience can qualify to become executives in government. As a result of this initiative, hiring managers can now directly appoint candidates from this pool, thereby enabling departments to meet their EX group employment equity objectives. So far, five appointments have been made, including one that my colleague here made only this morning, and we expect another five to be finalized this month.
The onus is now squarely on departments to hire this extremely high calibre of talent which we have made available to them.
[Translation]
I also want to update you on the study we had launched to provide us with concrete data on the phenomenon known as drop-off. Drop-off refers to the situation in which the appointment rate in external recruitment processes is significantly lower than the application rate. Our study found that during the period from 2000 to 2005, visible minorities averaged over 25 per cent of applications but received only 10 p. 100 of appointments. This is significant. Drop-off was greatest in the scientific and professional category in percentage points and in the administrative support category in terms of the volume of appointments made. Our study also found that this phenomenon is specific to visible minorities. There was no significant drop-off for the other employment equity groups.
[English]
The new Public Service Employment Act, which came into force on December 31, 2005, encourages delegation of appointment authorities for external recruitment and executive resourcing to deputy heads. It provides them with new flexibilities to meet the government's employment equity targets.
We have taken a number of steps to promote the use of these flexibilities such as sponsoring a conference in March to ensure that those in leadership roles have a good understanding of the employment equity flexibilities under the new legislation.
While it is too early to assess whether these flexibilities are having the intended results, we at the PSC will be closely following how departments use the flexibilities to make progress in achieving a representative public service.
We have built employment equity into the various elements of our oversight responsibilities — policy, delegations through the staffing management accountability framework, monitoring, reporting and auditing. Deputy heads are accountable to us for staffing in their departments, so we will provide feedback to them and also to the Clerk of the Privy Council for input into the annual performance assessment of deputies.
As we are ultimately accountable to Parliament for maintaining the integrity of appointments in the public service, we will also be reporting on this issue to Parliament.
My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions on these or other issues.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Gobeil.
Senator Kinsella: I would like to probe three different areas with you.
First, could you give us a sense of the size of the pool of applicants that fit the four target areas in the last fiscal year? Do you have that data? You mentioned some numbers in your presentation, but I did not get that.
How many openings do you have in the public service of Canada per year? When I know that number, I will want to know what pool you are able to identify of members of those four target groups.
Dan Coffin, Director General, Resourcing Services, Public Service Commission of Canada: We do not have the data available in terms of the number of positions that are open. We have just begun the introduction of a new system that will be able to capture more. It is difficult to capture that data from the past.
In terms of the number of applicants, up to 750,000 Canadians are attracted to positions open in the public service.
Senator Kinsella: Of that 750,000, how many could be categorized into the four target group areas?
Mr. Coffin: I do not have that breakdown.
Senator Kinsella: Does that data exist?
Paula Green, Director General, Equity and Diversity, Public Service Commission of Canada: In the drop-off study we looked at the data for five years. We will be able to give you the aggregate number based on the number of applications that we received broken down by the four employment equity groups.
We can also give you the appointment rate, but the data does not match within the same period of time. These are just growth statistics.
Senator Kinsella: Surely we know how many people are hired as new hirings into the public service.
Ms. Green: We have that broken down by employment equity groups, and we do have the percentage and the number of applications for that fiscal year.
Senator Kinsella: Do you do comparative studies with civil service commissions in other Canadian jurisdictions?
Ms. Green: No, we have not done any comparison with other Canadian jurisdictions.
Senator Kinsella: Do you have impressionistic information? Understanding the proportionality in terms of the size of the service and of your openings, do you know whether you are doing better in the Public Service Commission of Canada than the civil service commissions of other jurisdictions?
Ms. Green: No. However, in general, the federal public service is doing better in comparison to the private sector. We have some of that information as reported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For example, vis-à-vis visible minorities, the private sector, especially the banking industry, is doing much better than the public service. They do not currently have a gap, including in the middle manager and senior manager categories.
In the area of Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities, the federal government is ahead of the private sector in terms of regulated industries.
Senator Kinsella: Am I correct in understanding that the employment equity methodology legislation was designed to deal with historic or systemic discrimination?
Ms. Green: That is my understanding. However, it also requires us, when we know that there are gaps and under- representation, to proactively institute positive policies and practices.
Senator Kinsella: What is your assessment of the nature of systemic or historic discrimination in Canadian society in 2006?
Ms. Green: It could be many factors. It could be people who do not understand how to apply for government jobs. We have found some of that. We are trying to reach out to visible minorities. We have been successful in terms of training the trainers. We meet with community leaders in the ethnic groups and inform them about how to apply for government jobs. Much information is on our website.
For example, this afternoon we met with an association representing immigrant women, visible minorities, and took them through our process. As the services branch, we will be meeting with them again to deal with their issues.
Senator Kinsella: Do you think the groups of socially disadvantaged Canadians that exist today in current society are the same groups of socially disadvantaged Canadians who were apprehended at the time the Employment Equity Act was introduced?
Ms. Green: No, because Canadian society has changed a great deal. Even within the visible minority community, that is where we have the biggest gap. It has been diverse and it has changed quite a bit.
Senator Kinsella: Is anyone doing studies to try to determine the reality of groups of socially disadvantaged Canadians in the world of today?
Ms. Green: Along with the anti-racism initiative, I am aware that the Department of Human Resources and Social Development has some studies in the works, together with the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.
Senator Kinsella: If employment equity or affirmative action was conceptualized many years ago as a remedy to the malady of systemic discrimination, are we sure today that the disease is the same and, therefore, that remedy is appropriate? Based on your experience and the success level of trying to combat systemic discrimination through this particular program, do you think that new techniques — ones more creative than the old technique of employment equity or affirmative action such as contract compliance and other kinds of creative legislatively backed-up methodologies — are required?
Are you satisfied with the methodology of employment equity today, achieving the level of success that it has achieved, which is the subject of our inquiry in part? Should we, while maintaining that, be looking for more creative ways to deal with the problems of social discrimination and social disadvantage as defined in today's reality, rather than carrying on with the assumption that the only type of social disadvantage today is the one that was defined and identified for particular groups a number of years ago and which came up with this particular remedy?
Ms. Green: My feeling is that we really have to think outside the box. The Employment Equity Act will be up for parliamentary review to look at how it has operated, what has and has not worked, and there has been progress since 1997 when the public service was included under the legislation.
Insofar as the public service is concerned, with the changes brought about by the Public Service Employment Act, we really must look at more innovative means of hiring managers to embrace the concept of diversity. There has been a lot of work done in that regard. What we see as diversity is not just employment equity. It is really looking into the future for Canada and appreciating the different backgrounds of Canadians from across the country, who they are and how they bring their talents to the public service, and how we build on to that the policies and services that will serve Canadians, not just now but into the future. That is what we are working on.
[Translation]
Senator Pepin: You told us that at least 650 individuals have been hired by various departments. Do some departments hire visible minorities more than other departments?
Ms. Gobeil: Of course, some departments hire visible minorities more regularly than others. I would say, as the preamble to the answer, that part of the work of the Public Service Commission of Canada is to follow up with departments constantly to ensure that objectives are being met.
Other more radical routes do exist. For example, the commission may conduct investigations and sometimes even carry out audits. Last year we reported on a number of departments that were less proactive or were not at the level they were supposed to have achieved. Under such circumstances, the commission increases its follow-up activities with these departments and is much more involved.
In the case of some departments, we have even imposed certain conditions — namely, that in future any staffing action for EX positions should be reviewed more carefully. In the case of these departments, which for all sorts of reasons may have a less effective planning process in place or have a higher staff turnover, it is in our interest to track them more closely.
To sum up, I can say that the follow-up is constant and that the departments are not all at the same level. At the moment, 13 departments are involved in the EX-1 project, and if I am correct, of these, some were mentioned as being less advanced as regards the evaluation that was done last year. The commission is continuing to keep a close eye on all departments, and specifically on those that need a little more help.
Senator Pépin: Were the majority of individuals who were hired unilingual anglophone or were a few of them bilingual? Do you provide language training for people belonging to visible minorities?
[English]
Mr. Coffin: It depends on the requirements of the position for which the employment took place. If it is imperative it would indicate that the individual would have to meet the requirements of the position prior to being appointed. If not, there is a period of training that is allowable to the individual normally within a framework of two years in which to receive the training.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Out of the 650 individuals, what percentage applied and were hired for public service senior management positions? Are there currently individuals from visible minorities working within the public service senior management?
Ms. Gobeil: There are statistics for that, that is to say how many people apply and how many people work within the senior management of the public service. For example, for 2004-05, the statistics tell us that there were approximately 2,221 people from visible minorities, working within senior management.
Senator Pépin: In terms of the number of women who were hired, can you provide us statistics on the differences between the private sector and the public sector?
Ms. Gobeil: As we stated earlier, in terms of ``market availability,'' we have a higher proportion than in the private sector. The difference is not a huge one, but it is significant. The percentage of women working in the private sector is 52.2 per cent whereas in the federal government it is 53.5 per cent. It is a slight difference but the percentage is higher.
Senator Pépin: Is there a significant difference between the number of men and the number of women in senior management positions?
Ms. Gobeil: In terms of the numbers?
Senator Pépin: The percentage. Within the public service, is the percentage of women in senior management positions the same as the percentage of men?
Ms. Gobeil: I am told that 30 per cent of executive positions are held by women, therefore 70 per cent are held by men.
Senator Pépin: There is still work to do on that front.
To come back to visible minorities, several immigrants come to Canada with skills that they acquired in their country. They have a profession. This may be an issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction, but do you have ways of facilitating their integration so that they can pursue their career here, after a certain period of study? Do you have a role to play and, if so, what is it?
Ms. Gobeil: You are referring to equivalences. If I am correct — and I should check this — there are policies that provide for determining whether certain skills are equivalent to those acquired in Canada. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is responsible for issues related to labour, skills and equivalences. There are policies dealing with those issues.
Senator Pépin: There is a very high percentage of people immigrating to Canada who have skills in various areas and who cannot practice their profession. This has nothing to do with the public service, but apparently in Montreal there are many taxi drivers who are actually doctors. If they were provided with a bursary, just like students are, that would provide them with the opportunity of acquiring equivalences; I can assure you that we would have many more doctors than we do now. Does something like this exist in the public service?
Ms. Gobeil: That is more the responsibility of the Department of Human Resources, which is responsible for making those comparisons. Obviously, there are other factors which you are familiar with, for example, professional associations also get involved and this falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, there already are policies whose purpose is to foster better integration by taking into account the abilities, assets and skills of these individuals.
Senator Pépin: As you stated earlier, the percentage is quite significant for women. In terms of salaries, is the percentage equal or equivalent to that of their male colleagues?
Ms. Gobeil: That is an interesting question. The Treasury Board is responsible for salaries. Within the federal public service, at the EX-1 level, everyone earns the same salary, regardless of gender. An EX-5 employee, man or woman, is limited in what he or she can earn because there is already a cap at that level, so the salary depends on their date of appointment, but essentially there is no difference once a person has reached a particular level. When you are talking about equivalent levels, salaries are the same.
Senator Pépin: If you are telling us that there is a rather significant difference between the number of men and women in key positions, is there a program or a means that would encourage an increase in the number of women in these positions?
Ms. Gobeil: Perhaps by overshooting somewhat. Obviously the labour market is changing. You can see that in the federal public service. There are public servants who are retiring. You can see the picture changing. For example, you can see it in universities. When I did my law studies, there were many men in my class, but that has changed. When the Department of Justice is recruiting lawyers, you can see a significant difference. More women are being hired. The picture will change because emerging professionals are also changing. There are occupations and professions that were traditionally male preserves, and that is also changing. Obviously, the numbers of men and women are not always equal. In the sciences, there is a greater difference than in law or accounting, but that is changing. The picture should be different in the years to come.
[English]
The Chairman: Can I put you on the second round, Senator Pépin?
Senator Pépin: I am sorry.
The Chairman: I did not want to interrupt. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: I would like to give you an idea of how far back I am coming from. In 1964, before I left for military college, my father told me that he had made a career for himself. In other words, he told me that if I wanted a career in the Armed Forces, I would have to change my name from Dallaire to Dollards. In 1968, Prime Minister Trudeau introduced biculturalism which gave us the opportunity of being employed in our own language and of being considered equal. It took legislation to achieve that. Despite that, it took 15 years before French Canadians were considered as having earned their position and not as having been given their position through influence or through an affirmative action program. I experienced that for years when I was Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources and when I was involved with the Human Rights Commission, therefore in all four aspects of equality.
I would like to begin with some questions on your presentation. Do the Aboriginal numbers mean that there is not a problem? According to my information, it seems that it is, that this number represents almost one million Aboriginal people and Métis in the country.
Ms. Gobeil: In terms of the availability of Aboriginal labour, the number is 2.5 per cent in the private sector. In terms of hiring, that percentage is 4.2 per cent. Perhaps that does not exactly answer your question in which you state that there are one million Aboriginal people. The comparisons are with respect to available labour in the private sector. All that to say that we have a higher number of Aboriginal employees. We have twice as many Aboriginal employees, in percentage terms, as are available in the private sector.
Senator Dallaire: Thus, all these figures are compared with the number of people available to be hired. They do not reflect the size of these groups within the national population.
Ms. Gobeil: You are right.
Senator Dallaire: This exercise was not done with francophones. As for the others, is it simply based on the number available in the community?
Ms. Gobeil: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: This does not reflect the true evolution of these groups in our society. Would the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development have the statistics on this?
Ms. Gobeil: Probably. We could do a follow-up.
Senator Dallaire: Yes, please. Now, Let us come back to visible minorities. According to your information, 650 candidates were identified as members of visible minorities. They must have diplomas and be competent in either one of the two official languages, but what other things might they need besides that?
Ms. Gobeil: Under the new legislation, according to the selection process referred to for EXs, the person must have the essential qualifications for a specific position. If it is a manager in a very decentralized environment, we need someone who has expertise in managing large groups of people. As for any extra qualifications, experience or professional or academic skills that a person might have, departments now have the flexibility and discretion, during the selection process — what was previously called the competition — to add an extra element that would be an asset. A department could say, ``These are our basic conditions.'' It would be helpful to have someone with added skills.
Thus, the discretionary power should favour those who have other skills in addition to the basic skills required for the position.
[English]
Senator Dallaire: That is a nice outlook to have. In the 650 — or in the numbers that you wanted to retain out of that because we do not know whether you wanted to retain all 650 or only 40 or 20 or 12 — was there a figure indicating even though they could not speak English or French and there was an accreditation problem, that the individual has an experience level worth using? Do we have 50 EX positions for training only, meaning we will take these people and send them to college because they already have training to be able to become available? Does that exist? You mentioned two years for language training but I gather the person is not sent on a two-year language course — they have to work at that.
Mr. Coffin: In response to the prequalified pool that we discussed for the EX-1 level of the 41 candidates in the pool, 12 of those are actually at the level CBC which is the norm for the executive level. The others are not there. They may have different combinations of levels but they are not all there. There is an opportunity for departments to actually engage them at the executive level and then provide training to bring their level up to meet the standard of CBC.
Senator Dallaire: Who pays that year's salary?
Mr. Coffin: That is the department's responsibility.
Senator Dallaire: The departments have extra PYs for developing EXs who do not have just bilingualism but not even a starting linguistic capability in this country, plus they would need some equivalent education to develop. No, we do not have that, right? We have to send them to learn English or French and that is part of the training package or education or development package every ministry has.
Mr. Coffin: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Dallaire: There is, however, no special pool to go out and bring non-linguistic English, French or equivalents.
Ms. Gobeil: No, there is not.
The Chairman: Can we get the answer on the record? The witnesses are nodding.
Senator Dallaire: Is it a no?
The Chairman: I would like them to answer so it would be on the record.
Ms. Gobeil: The answer is no. You have to meet both languages, English or French, in order to get in. You are probably referring to programs that HRDC may have to ensure that individuals have this before they enter the public service. Part of the merit is that you have to speak either English or French. It is when you are only anglophone and need a second language to get into bilingual positions that you would get the training the department would have available.
Senator Dallaire: I think HRDC would be very useful.
The EX level in the public service is increasing annually the number of EXs we have in the public service.
Mr. Coffin: That has been the trend; it has been increasing.
Senator Dallaire: Would the rate be? About 5 or 6 per cent?
Mr. Coffin: I have to verify the numbers.
Senator Dallaire: What are the losses of visible minorities in the public service at the EX level? What are the losses annually to attrition of visible minorities to the public service?
[Translation]
Ms. Gobeil: We consulted each other, but unfortunately, we do not have the numbers regarding retention.
[English]
I do not have the numbers in terms of retention.
The Chairman: There have been a number of very technical questions. It would be helpful if you could go through the evidence afterwards and provide us with written answers. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: It is no small task to find EXs, as you are doing. How many candidates were eliminated because of security problems? Which candidates did not get the security rating to become EXs? Has this issue been raised?
[English]
Ms. Gobeil: I do not have any information in terms of who was turned down because of security reasons.
Senator Dallaire: It is often raised that they are coming from other countries, are security risks and so on.
We have these numbers, percentages and so on; we did say it is compared to the working pool. Is there a strategic objective for when the public service will be essentially not a white anglo/franco/Judeo/Christian public service, but in fact will be a multi-ethnical/anglo/franco public service? Is there some sort of grand strategic design for that?
Ms. Gobeil: I can not provide you with any date like 2020 but we can look at the history. We talked this afternoon about the four designated groups where, again, if we take women — and I do not deny there is progress that still remains to be made for those groups — however progress has been made. It is the same for visible minorities.
We are trying to ensure that departments work closely together. We are not the only player. The Treasury Board is an employer as are the other departments. We work in a very decentralized world where things are pretty much delegated to the departments.
The role of the commission is to ensure that the right policies are in place and that departments adhere to them. We have an oversight role and if we find there are issues to be dealt with, we go back to the departments and try to correct matters with them. We ensure the appropriate programs are in place as we did with the EX pool. We currently have 41 competent people waiting to be appointed to jobs. We talk to deputy ministers as well as to the Clerk of the Privy Council. We take advantage of the new legislation, which makes clear in its preamble how important diversity and representativeness are for the Canadian public service, as they are for the entire country.
We are optimistic, although I do not have any numbers to give you, that things will continue to progress.
Senator Dallaire: We have been dealing with the anglophone/francophone issue for 30 years and we still have some serious problems. For over 20 years we have had policies dealing with women, and we are still at barely 30 per cent. Visible minorities will be the dominant element in the workforce beyond 2010. In the military, we projected that beyond 2010 we would have to consider visible minority units.
Rather than having affirmative action targets imposed by politicians and everyone scrambling to meet them, we want a philosophy that by 2015 we will reflect the true nature of the workforce of Canada.
Am I correct that there is no such strategy articulated in that fashion?
Ms. Gobeil: Not with a timetable.
Senator Munson: You spoke of many things in your last answer to Senator Dallaire. However, we are examining the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service. What do you think is the most pressing problem facing the Public Service Commission? What do you believe should be changed in the way things are done?
Ms. Gobeil: We know what we have to do and departments know what they have to do. We have to seize opportunities that arise. We are getting into a new area. We have new legislation that grants much more flexibility to departments. Again, we must keep in mind that they make their own appointments. It is a matter of ensuring that the departments have the required knowledge, training and understanding. They know what is available, and they know what they are missing by not resorting to visible minority groups.
We must ensure that the tools are in place and that we continue to work with departments to ensure everything is in place for them.
If we see that some departments have some issues, we are there to help by creating programs for them. The ball is in their court to use the tools and make it happen.
The challenge for us is to ensure that the understanding is there and to use all the elements we now have, especially taking advantage of the new regime we have under the new legislation.
The new legislation ensures that the departments do have a human resources plan so that they are able to look at their workforce, link it to their business plans and consider what skills and competencies they will need in five years. We are assisting them to shift their HR planning to the use of resources and planning for future employees. As well, with so many people starting to retire, people must make conscious decisions and seize the opportunities they have in order to achieve this.
Senator Munson: Which departments are implementing the best employment equity initiatives and why?
Ms. Green: I think the PSC is doing well. We have no gaps.
Senator Munson: Are there others?
Ms. Green: In terms of visible minorities, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Health Canada always do quite well.
Senator Munson: What is holding the other ones back?
Ms. Green: There are various things. Some have tried different means of recruiting, but they have not been that successful. Others are having difficulty integrating their business plan with their human resources plan. They are just at the beginning stage in terms of identifying the gaps. It is not that they are not doing anything; it just takes them a bit longer to fill in the gaps.
Senator Munson: When the President of the Treasury Board appeared before this committee in 2004, he said that on recruitment we do poorly. He said that we went to campuses and encouraged bright young Canadians to apply. Of the 22,000 students who applied, only 500 were hired. He described it as shocking and said there are systemic reasons for why that is, but that it is not acceptable. He asked the question then and I ask it now: What is the Public Service Commission doing? It seems like a small proportion, in terms of the people who have applied, to rectify this situation with Canada's students. They are, after all, our best and brightest and you talked about the retirement process.
Mr. Coffin: The reference to 500 was with regard to our post-secondary recruitment program, which is to hire recent graduates into indeterminate positions. We are currently analyzing the 2005-06 data and there has been some improvement.
We have found that it works much better when recruitment campaigns focus on certain skill sets or certain disciplines versus generic. We are working closely with departments and communities of practice in terms of collective staffing. A case in point would be with the Department of Finance. They have a specific program and we are having more success on that front.
We continue to work directly. In fact, we are engaging now in a study of university and college students in terms of what their preferences are, what they are looking for and how they see the public service. We are interested in the data that will come out of that rather large sample size to inform us how we must strategically move forward to increase the numbers.
Other programs are much more successful. For example, in the 2004-05 fiscal year, 9,709 students were hired, but that was a combination of an indeterminate basis for regular student programs during the non-academic year and during the academic year for part time. We are having success with those programs. The federal student work experience program is a case in point. It is successful and popular, and the bulk of students were hired under it. Many of those students come back with their experience and apply in open processes and are successful in that. It is a good introduction to the federal public service. We see a continuity of their experience when they actually become candidates in the public service for indeterminate and other positions.
We are looking closely at how we can best manage that program on behalf of other departments to focus on what students are looking for and for us to get the right fit.
The post-secondary recruitment has some work to do. We are currently working on that.
Senator Munson: Concerning external recruitment, in your statement you talk about the drop-off phenomenon where the appointment rate in the external recruitment process is lower than the application rate. Your study found that during the period from 2000 to 2005, visible minorities averaged over 25 per cent of applications but received only 10 per cent of appointments. You talked about an ongoing study.
Do you have any preliminary ideas about why this is happening and why there is no significant drop-off for other employment equity groups? This has been going on for five years and you are in the midst of trying to analyze it, but can you give us a few hints as to why?
Ms. Gobeil: We are still at the preliminary stage in terms of our findings. That is what we reported today. Right now, with the new legislation, we will have a new system that will allow us to better screen people who apply. Much of the screening now will be done automatically to assist. My colleague may be able to explain this better.
We do not know at this point why it is that, again, we have a high number of people who apply and when it comes to appointment there is a gap. Therefore, we are looking at our means. My colleague alluded to the fact that maybe it is the way in which people look at the statement and apply. We are now at the phase of looking at the causes. We do not know. We think that having a system in place or having more done in terms of screening through a system may help, but at this point we have not drawn any conclusions.
Senator Munson: On disabilities, the number of people in the federal public service with disabilities is at 5.7 per cent and that is considered an acceptable level. Why is that an acceptable level? What opportunities are available for advancement for disabled Canadians? Do you have figures on the promotions they can get? It is one thing to be a clerk for life but how do you move on, like everybody else, into the higher echelons of the public service?
Ms. Green: With respect to the representation of persons with disabilities, at the end of March 2005, we have gone up a notch to 5.8 per cent in the public service. The comparative for that is the workforce availability, which is at 3.6 per cent, and it is based on the special census done for persons with disabilities in 2001.
In terms of the hiring rate, we know that we are a bit behind the 3.6 per cent. We are hiring at about 3.1 or 3.2 per cent. We suspect that the representation is probably with the existing employees with disabilities doing more voluntary self-identification. That is our presumption.
It is something that we need to push departments for. It would have to be worked on department by department. For some of the science-based departments, we see they have a gap on persons with disabilities just by nature of the occupational groups. For other departments, the gaps are not as high.
Under the new legislation, there is an allowance. The flexibility is for departments to really target for the particular occupational group and try to fill the gap.
We at the PSC offer them advice in terms of accommodating persons with disabilities during the staffing process so they ensure we test their abilities and not their disabilities.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Following up on Senator Munson's question about recruiting in universities, there is so much push from the government on words like ``productivity'' and ``entrepreneurship'' and so on. When I think of the federal public service, I actually do not necessarily think of ``entrepreneurship'' but perhaps ``productivity.'' Does this come up as an issue with students?
Mr. Coffin: We are actually waiting for the final version of the study I referenced earlier to be delivered to us in July. Surprising enough, in certain categories of students, the public service is one of the first choices in terms of career. The things students were looking for were surprising as well. Number one was opportunities for advancement, and then it was good people to work with, good people to work for. This is focusing on generation Y and we are interested in terms of our future work force in terms of how that will translate.
There are also some co-relations between the fields of study, the disciplines in the academic and the basic interest in coming to government and which ones are attracted to the federal public service. We are waiting to do the analysis to determine which fields of study are attractive and an early cut of that is that it is a fairly broad range.
It was not so much as a shock as it was a surprise in relation to the numbers. We are talking about a sample size of 2,700 plus, so it was a good sample size of Canadian students. Therefore, we are interested in measuring that and looking at what fields and how we best approach them, because there is a huge diversity in terms of opportunity within the public service. It is not all at certain levels; we have scientists, we have meteorologists, we have senior management and mathematicians. It offers a lot in terms of a career choice and we want to ensure that we match our marketing and branding to meet the needs of students as they see meeting their particular requirements as a career.
Senator Nancy Ruth: With regard to women, I am curious about wages. You said there were more women hired in the public service than there are in the private sector right now. I wonder if you have a median on wages, both in the private sector and in the public sector and who is paying more and what are the differences in the median.
Following that, I am curious to know what is the average wage earned by a man in the public service and the average wage earned by a woman? If there are only 30 per cent in executive jobs most of the women are down below with low wages — is that right?
Ms. Gobeil: I am sure it exists. Salary and compensation are negotiated by the Treasury Board so I will undertake to get you that information because I am sure those studies have been made in terms of comparison. Just a note of caution though — we have to make sure we compare the same work. There are women in administration functions. There are also more men in blue collar, like the traditional trades and so on. It is hard to compare in terms of one group vis-à-vis another one. We can give you salaries in terms of an administration group, which also includes male individuals in that group but it is predominantly a female group. I would caution that it is hard to compare between those groups. I am sure studies exist between men and women in the public service. We must realize that we cannot compare two groups, however. We then get into pay equity issues and all of this and there is much debate on these matters.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I believe too much caution can be a problem.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision on the constitutionality of the need for Canadian citizenship for most federal public service jobs. Can you tell me what proportion of job openings on average requires people to be Canadians? What sorts of jobs are they?
What I really want to know is this — what jobs can people get if they are not Canadian citizens?
Mr. Coffin: There is no distinction. There is a citizenship preference, which would be Canadians as a priority over non-Canadians for jobs. I am sure there are some jobs, in terms of highly specialized areas, where the supply is not available in Canada where it may be open beyond that. However, the policy is one of Canadian preference.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If you are landed and still a year away from getting your citizenship, will your access to the federal civil service be limited by this Canadian preference substantially or a little bit or a lot? How big a factor is it?
Mr. Coffin: It is a big factor.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is a big factor, so do not bother applying?
Mr. Coffin: Citizenship is definitely a large factor.
The Chairman: You have prefaced everything you have said by saying that it is a merit-based system, and you have underscored that. Within that, you try to attract visible minorities, you try to create fairness for women and you take into account disabilities, et cetera. It seems to me that, in the new act, it has come down to money. Allegedly, deputy ministers will not be promoted themselves if they do not meet the criteria set out for these target groups. We have talked about that in our previous sessions.
We have talked about affirmative action programs. You have given us some statistics. It seems to me that 20 years ago and more, we did a lot of sensitivity training and tried to have role models. We said the more we are used to seeing a woman in a job, the more it becomes normal and ordinary. The more we are used to seeing a brown or a black face, the more it becomes ordinary. What are you doing in that area, as opposed to what I call the hard-crunching numbers? What new or innovative programs are you doing to make the public service comfortable with women and minorities and disabled people in certain positions?
Ms. Gobeil: We are back to recruitment. If we can achieve our goals and ensure that we have visible minority representation, that in itself goes to the point you just made. That in itself is helpful. The same goes for women. I do not have the statistics as to where we were 20 years ago but, understanding that, maybe we are not where we would like to be. Nevertheless, progress has been made.
I think those role models are there. Are they at a point where we are satisfied? Probably not. We discussed that this afternoon. We put a lot of emphasis on some of the recruitment programs, using some of the deputies' and commission's discretion. We have an area of selection that can be limited to make sure the designated group can only apply to that process. There are many of those tools available. Also, there are people already in place, hoping that it will improve.
The Chairman: Are there no new initiatives? Is it just more grinding away, trying to chip away to get to those goals?
Ms. Green: Our approach to employment equity is not to make it like an afterthought or an add-on. Implementing the new legislation gave us the opportunity to build the employment equity lens.
You mentioned diversity training, including everybody, inclusion by design, and a lot of that goes into our training for new employees and managers from supervisors all the way up to the executive level as well as looking at the functional groups, particularly at the human resources specialists. That is built into their required training.
The organization responsible for delivering that training is the Canada School of Public Service. The Treasury Board has just approved the policy on required training. In that context, it is all built into the package of the required knowledge and standards that managers must have, and they would have to apply that in their everyday business.
In a way, we do not have, like we did previously, so-called special employment equity programs or the special measures where additional money was provided by the Treasury Board for some of these initiatives and pilot projects.
The Chairman: We are almost at 5:20 p.m. We need to vacate this room at 5:30 p.m., and we need to save five minutes for passing the budget.
I propose Senator Kinsella, Senator Pépin and Senator Dallaire for a second round. Could you put your questions and give the panel a chance to answer?
Senator Kinsella: My question relates to a rather happy occurrence, namely the fact that Canadians from coast to coast are now eligible to apply for positions in the national capital region (NCR). I believe that started in April, a few weeks ago.
Will your commission be advertising, in a robust fashion, openings in the national capital region across Canada, being mindful of the distribution of the target group populations across Canada? There are a lot more First Nations' people in the province of Manitoba than in the Ottawa region. That seems to be a logical place for an emphasis. Will you be doing those kinds of things?
Mr. Coffin: One of the requirements of the new act is that all departments use jobs.gc.ca, which is a site that is managed by the Public Service Commission. All job postings are available at that site. In fact, the number of hits there is rising incrementally. There is also Info-Tel, which is for those who prefer to use the telephone approach to become aware of all jobs that are available in their area or those available nationally. There are also services offered at our regional offices. Canadians across the country will be given access to information about all jobs at NCR.
It does not stop there. We are in the process of planning an implementation in two other provinces with pilot departments that will lead them to a planned national area selection in April of 2007 for all regions across the country for all officer positions. We are in a full implementation strategy and working diligently towards that.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: There is mention of role models in the public service. I think that this often refers to role models that existed 20 years ago. I thought that given the very traditional nature of the public service, we should perhaps adapt various models to try to draw the attention of these people as they are now: they no longer wear hats, they wear caps and they often wear them backwards. This goes to show that things have changed over the past 20 years and perhaps we should have a new approach to attract attention.
Secondly, there are the aboriginal women. We spoke about various minorities and even of physically handicapped persons, but as regards aboriginal people, is there any specific problem that could explain the low number of aboriginal people in the public service? Earlier, someone said that that percentage was perhaps not exactly what we wanted. Is there a very specific problem that had not been anticipated and that could explain their low numbers in the ranks of the public service?
Ms. Gobeil: One function of the Public Service Commission is to ensure that messages sent out during selection processes contain the right information regarding models, so that everyone can subscribe to the programs. Ms. Green and her team are in charge of distributing this information. When you look at the ads and the brochures, you will see that they correspond fairly well to what should be expected from the Public Service Commission and the public service in general.
[English]
Ms. Green: With respect to Aboriginals, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has a departmental policy that they will target. Their objective is to reach a minimum of 50-per-cent Aboriginals because of their mandate and clientele. They have special initiatives attracting these candidates. Other departments with similar types of programs and clientele for First Nations, under the new legislation, also have similar 50-per-cent targets for external recruitment.
Senator Pépin: Has that been successful?
Ms. Green: The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is at about 30 per cent. Their target is also to have the representation at all occupational groups and levels, not just at the lower end of the jobs.
Senator Dallaire: First, how many EXs are there in total? Second, in the female-dominated professions and trades, has the pay equity issue been resolved with the Human Rights Commission in regard to that amount because it was substantive? Has that now been totally implemented?
With the new act, what has been the reaction of the Public Service Alliance of Canada or the unions to some of these policies?
What are the figures with respect to accommodating disabled people? There is a figure out there. As an example, right now the military injured on duty have a priority to join the public service and it is limited, except it is at the discretion of deputy ministers to hire them or not. I would contend that although this new policy gives room to deputy ministers, if you are looking at hitting your targets on the disabled, all departments should be hiring disabled military if they meet the criteria.
Finally, what is the policy for moving the public service and the operation for employment of EXs? Looking at the public service, which is not very mobile even within jobs, and looking at the fact that there are not many visible minorities in the Ottawa area, what is the option of decentralizing across the country like Veterans Affairs Canada did? Is that a policy that might be looked at?
Will we give visible minorities the same advantages we gave to French Canadians in regards to employment? We created a lot of capabilities in the Province of Quebec — in my opinion it is still not enough — for employment closer to home. Will that sort of policy move to visible minorities? For example, in DND they will have to start looking at a Sikh regiment as opposed to a Scottish regiment in relation to Canadians.
The Chairman: You can, if you wish on reflection, send more material in your response, but perhaps pick answers to the other questions.
Mr. Coffin: In terms of the question about the number of EXs, there are approximately 4,300.
Ms. Gobeil: With respect to pay equity, I was at the Treasury Board when this was being discussed.
Generally speaking, a lot of these issues have been concluded. I am always reluctant because this is no longer within the portfolio of the commission. There may still be litigation going on of which I am not aware. I think most of them have been resolved, but there still may be issues relating to the pay equity dispute that was going on at the time.
You asked about the new legislation and references to bargaining agents. Bargaining agents appear in various committees; they make their views known. We have the commission and we have an advisory board composed of various bargaining agents that advise us with respect to the policies we adopt. There was one of those meetings this afternoon that I could not attend. We sit down with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and so on. We talk to them about what we are about to do and the natural area of selection to which the senator alluded. We work closely with them.
You referred to the issue about disabled members of the Canadian Forces. With the new legislation, we have four members from the forces as well as RCMP members being discharged for medical reasons. They do have a priority, which is not at the discretion of the deputy minister. They have a priority to be appointed to other public service positions and that priority lasts for two years.
With the new legislation, departments can now — and that is at the discretion of the department — expand their internal competition to members of the forces. That is in existence since the new legislation.
In addition, people released for medical reasons do have a priority.
Senator Dallaire: I know that. It was at the discretion of the DMs for that option that I think should be eliminated and imposed across the board.
The Chairman: I will leave the rest for any written responses.
I thank the witnesses from the Public Service Commission for their open and frank discussion and for answering questions from around the table. You can understand how seriously the senators are taking your work. We will continue to look into this field. We hope to produce a report to table in the Senate to bring other senators up to date and other Canadians on the progress in this field.
I am going to excuse the witnesses with our appreciation and ask senators to remain in their chairs. I think we can turn to our next session, which will be the budgets.
The budgets were circulated earlier and approved. With the termination of Parliament, we must reinstitute them. The major budget is the one on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a study of rights and freedoms of children. It is what we contemplated to do in travelling out West and to Montreal and Toronto. The budget has not changed. It has been adjusted. It was the amount we approved previously, but could not expend.
The other budgets deal with the continuing look at the special study of Canada's international and national human rights obligations. It is just the budget to cover our luncheon expenses, books and publications. The same goes for the continuing study on Aboriginal women and matrimonial real property on reserve. The final one is the special study on the federal public service.
These are nothing new. We discussed them about three meetings back but we need to formally approve them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Does this preclude all the budgets for next year?
The Chairman: No, it does not.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You can keep expanding them as you so wish? How does it work?
The Chairman: If we finish a study according to what we are doing, we could go back for new money for a new study. At a previous meeting we discussed this and also at the steering committee. After we finish the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we want to start another study. At that point we would go back to internal economy for more money or we will start the study with the funds we have and look to travel in the next fiscal year.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You know how to fix this. This is not the end of the money?
The Chairman: On the other hand, this committee has tried not to spend money until we could demonstrate an absolute need for it. We did that for many years. We proved our worth by staying in Ottawa and producing valuable reports before we asked for a larger chunk of money.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I assume that is how every committee of the Senate proceeds.
The Chairman: I will leave it to other committees to decide how to proceed.
I need a motion.
Senator Pépin: I so move.
The Chairman: Will you move all four motions at once?
Senator Pépin: I so move.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, senators.
The committee adjourned.