Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Diversity
Issue No. 1 - Evidence - March 29, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 29, 2017
The Subcommittee on Diversity of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 2:30 p.m. for the consideration of financial and administrative matters, pursuant to rule 12-7(1); and in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Subcommittee on Diversity. My name is Mobina Jaffer, and I am the chair of the committee. With me, I have Dan Charbonneau, the clerk of the committee.
Senator Marshall: I'm Senator Elizabeth Marshall. I represent the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: This subcommittee was mandated by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to review the findings contained in the fifth report of the Senate Administration's Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility, and issues of diversity in the Senate workforce.
[English]
The role of the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Accessibility is to advise senior leadership from a diversity perspective on policies affecting all recruitment of employees and to provide leadership to foster a work environment that is diverse, inclusive and equitable.
Our report was tabled on December 8, 2016. As part of our review, we have invited representatives from the Public Service Commission. Today, we have Tim Pettipas, Acting Senior Vice-President; Robert McSheffrey, Director General, Personnel Psychology Centre; Geoff Zerr, Acting Director General, Policy Development Directorate; and Nathalie Roy, Director, Data Services and Analysis Directorate.
I appreciate you being here. I understand that you showed great interest in working with us, and I appreciate that. I'm sure this will be the first of many meetings as we work throughout the years on mutual issues.
I'm assuming, Mr. Pettipas, you will be speaking?
Tim Pettipas, Acting Senior Vice-President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Yes. I will start by saying we equally welcome the ongoing collaboration. It's an important area of work.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for inviting the Public Service Commission today with a view to helping to inform the important work that you're undertaking with respect to advancing diversity within the Senate's human resources context.
[Translation]
Although the Senate operates under a different staffing framework, I am hopeful we will be able to provide you with some information that will be helpful to you as you work towards your goals. I am here today with some of my colleagues, who I will introduce more formally: Mr. Robert McSheffrey, Director General, Personnel Psychology Centre; Mr. Geoff Zerr, Acting Director General, Policy Development Directorate; and Ms. Nathalie Roy, Director, Data Services and Analysis Directorate.
[English]
Let me start by briefly situating the Public Service Commission's role to provide some context for my comments. I'll start by indicating, as you may be aware, that the PSC is responsible for promoting and safeguarding merit-based appointments that are free from political influence and in collaboration with other stakeholders for protecting the non- partisan nature of the public service.
To provide some sense of scale from the outset, I should mention that over 70 organizations and approximately 197,000 employees fall under the Public Service Employment Act, the PSEA, which is the key legislation that guides the Public Service Commission's mandate.
While the PSEA gives appointment authority to the Public Service Commission, it equally calls for this authority to be delegated to deputy heads of departments and agencies, which is a unique and important component of that mandate. While the Public Service Commission remains accountable to Parliament for the overall integrity of the staffing system, it shares that accountability with deputy heads who are responsible for staffing within their own organizations.
Insofar as it relates to areas under its mandate, the PSC also has a shared responsibility with the Treasury Board Secretariat for employment equity. Specifically, the Public Service Commission is responsible for identifying and eliminating barriers in staffing and recruitment, as well as for developing policies and practices that promote representativeness and diversity in the federal public service.
[Translation]
In a decentralized system based on this delegation of authorities, the PSC fulfills its mandate by providing policy direction and expertise, establishing terms and conditions for delegation, conducting effective oversight, and delivering innovative staffing and assessment services.
Broadly speaking, the PSC's efforts are aimed at achieving the intent of the Public Service Employment Act. This intent is well captured in its preamble, which underscores the value of a public service that represents Canada's diversity and whose members are drawn from across the country, reflecting a myriad of backgrounds, skills and professions.
[English]
Given the focus of your work and the related interest in hearing from us here today, I would like to outline a number of the specific means through which we set out to achieve those objectives.
Everything starts with merit because it thereby ensures a singular focus on the fair assessment of individuals against the qualifications of a position. By so doing, we ensure that everyone has the same starting point and the same opportunities to enter the public service.
While merit is enshrined in the Public Service Employment Act, our policy frame establishes further requirements for how this is to be brought to life in the staffing system. This serves to provide a more level playing field for all applicants. For example, the policy frame sets direction that allows for Canadians to apply for jobs available to the public, irrespective of where they reside in the country. That's by policy. As another example, recognizing that some candidates may require accommodations during application or assessment, our policy reinforces the duty to accommodate.
One simple approach the Public Service Commission has taken in this area most recently is to require that all hiring managers sign an attestation form before they can hire in the public service. By signing the form, managers attest that, among other things, they will consider employment equity objectives and ensure the assessment is free from bias and personal favouritism. This provides an opportunity for managers to reflect on the full set of obligations and the principles associated with hiring in the federal public service.
[Translation]
Within this policy frame, the PSC provides advice, guidance, and services to support hiring managers and human resources professionals. By making our professional services available to organizations, the PSC is able to exert influence within the system of delegated authorities towards the ongoing achievement of a diverse, representative public service. For example, the PSC provides advice related to accommodation in the assessment process. We can recommend assessment accommodations based on disability and other grounds.
[English]
Increasingly, we're leveraging technology to increase accessibility and fairness in our recruitment and assessment processes. This has allowed us to introduce unsupervised Internet testing — where tests can actually be taken from your own home — as well as universal design elements and other innovations.
In the context of its key role in recruitment to the public service, the commission is keenly aware that how positions are advertised also matters for ensuring a representative public service. In 2015-16, approximately 2,700 jobs were advertised to the public through the Government of Canada's online jobs portal for which the PSC is responsible. We continually examine our processes and systems to ensure they are fully accessible, as well as to take advantage of new adaptive technologies.
As part of our government-wide recruitment campaigns, we also target a wide range of communities across Canada. This far-ranging outreach is critical to ensuring that Canadians from all segments of our society are aware of opportunities and equally understand how they can apply and be considered for a career in the federal public service.
Across this ongoing work, though, I should say there's a common theme, which is that we aim to make the overall application and assessment process more inclusive and to help to ensure the assessment is not based on any factors unrelated to merit.
On April 1, 2016 — this weekend is the one-year anniversary — the Public Service Commission rolled out a new direction in staffing, which represented the most ambitious change to the staffing system since the Public Service Modernization Act was enacted more than a decade ago. Essentially, we streamlined our policies and established a strengthened oversight model framed on shared accountability and commitment to the ongoing improvement of the staffing system on a moving-forward basis. This streamlined policy framework and the requirements in it highlight the importance of achieving a representative and diverse public service through a fair, merit-based staffing system.
We continue to build on the changes to our appointment framework and our oversight model as we are now moving beyond just the policy frame to examine the more practical aspects of how staffing occurs. Over the coming years we will continue to work with our partners across the federal public service and beyond to look at new approaches to recruitment so that we can best meet the evolving expectations of managers and Canadians at large. We're going to do that by listening, responding and then listening again, quite frankly, to the diverse needs and interests of our stakeholders, which is by far our best bet for achieving the intent of the Public Service Employment Act, which includes a diverse and representative public service to effectively serve Canadians.
So that's why the PSC is committed to designing its service with the user perspective in mind and continuously adapting and improving its services, programs and approaches to staffing. By casting a wide recruitment net and then providing services to organizations to support the fair assessment of individuals against the qualifications of a position, the PSC contributes to a public service that is representative of Canada's full diversity.
[Translation]
We will now be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting.
We will begin with the deputy chair, Senator Marshall.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. I have several questions, and I think I'm going to start off with a general one and then focus on diversity.
Earlier in your remarks, you were talking about oversight and your compliance with policies. Do you do some sort of evaluation? You're saying it's decentralized out to the departments, so they are required to comply with all of your policies. You are telling them what the policies are and you are setting them loose. Do you do any work or evaluations to ensure that you are complying with your policies?
Mr. Pettipas: Yes, we absolutely do. It's structured as a joint accountability. We do a number of things at the system-wide level. As part of our new oversight model, every second year we conduct a system-wide audit. We look across all organizations. A random sampling gives us a fair look at that, and we're looking at compliance with the core policy requirements that are in place.
Senator Marshall: So you go in and look at the files and you discuss.
Mr. Pettipas: We have traditionally, over the years, done that on an entity basis, and we are now shifting with organizations looking within their own organizations, and there are obligations. We have a delegation instrument with organizations. They have an obligation for ongoing monitoring, and once every five years to conduct a cyclical assessment in that regard.
We are focusing our attention where we feel we're most effective, which is looking at the system-wide level because we are most interested in systemic issues that can be identified across organizations. It's there where we feel we have an obligation to say if we identify something at a systemic level, then we need to work with our partners to start to address and to look at how we can adjust that.
In addition to the work done at an organizational level and the system-wide level, on the alternating years we also conduct a survey of staffing, because it's not just compliance; we need people's perceptions on how they feel the staffing system is functioning for them.
We have a number of components of that, but we also have other ways to look at the system, whether it's through conducting studies or, increasingly, through a lot of user testing. We have made a lot of recent changes even in the context of how our application processes work by working with Canadians and stopping the presumption that we know how to design it but letting them participate in the co-development. We have an oversight function and then we also have an ongoing, continuous improvement function in that regard.
Senator Marshall: Based on what you know now, would you say that your organizations are fairly well in compliance? Have you found problem areas? What's been your experience with regard to the evaluations?
Mr. Pettipas: We report to Parliament once a year on giving a bit of a sense of the health of the staffing system. What we have seen, to be quite frank, is a continuing maturity of the staffing system. We do have a high level of confidence, to be quite frank.
We are always looking to make improvements. We spend a lot of time with outreach. We have a structure that works directly with each organization to provide them support.
Senator Marshall: You're a big organization.
Mr. Pettipas: Yes. We have an approach to seminars on assessment and accommodation. We're trying to sort of propel the system forward in a progressive manner through education, the provision of information and increased shared and collaborative monitoring and oversight to identify areas.
But, no, there's nothing we're seized with in that context. Our sense is that the system is mature and functioning well.
Senator Marshall: You said a couple of times that merit is the overriding factor. How do you marry merit with diversity? Do candidates have to be equal?
Mr. Pettipas: When I say it all starts with merit, our sense is that by designing the true qualifications for a position and ensuring a fair assessment against those particular qualifications is the means to develop your workforce of the future.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
Mr. Pettipas: And when you say "equal," we often say "fair" because in some instances a certain assessment process may need to be adapted for one individual who may need an accommodation to have a longer period of time to take that test or may need adaptive technology to take that test. It may not be identically applied, but it's a fair model in the sense that we're trying to achieve an inclusive model for it.
Senator Marshall: Would those assessment criteria be written down? Is that a grid?
Mr. Pettipas: The qualifications for the position need to be available to a candidate to understand the qualifications for the position, and the basis for the process for assessment needs to be equally understood.
Within the context of how that assessment occurs, a fair amount of discretion is applied to a hiring manager in terms of having to meet the policy requirements for how we go about this, but in terms of the tools and assessment methods, we have left a discretionary space.
Senator Marshall: There's flexibility in that area?
Mr. Pettipas: Yes. In some instances there may be leveraging of different tools, depending on whether there are external candidates or internal candidates.
Senator Marshall: But you have to meet the requirements of the job.
Mr. Pettipas: Absolutely.
Senator Marshall: That's where you focus on the merit.
Mr. Pettipas: Absolutely.
Senator Omidvar: I have lots and lots of questions. Sadly, I will have to leave earlier than the 45 minutes because of chamber business, so if I may, I'll get them all on the record.
I want to know how you're dealing with conscious and unconscious bias.
I want to know your assessment of the depth of diversity into management —
The Chair: May I ask that you let them answer, and when you run out of time then you can put the rest on the list to the witnesses?
Senator Omidvar: Okay.
The Chair: The reason I say that is that there may be something they say to which you may want to ask a follow-up question. Would you rather do it this way?
Senator Omidvar: I'm under time pressure. I will take your lead on this.
The Chair: Then we can take your list.
Senator Omidvar: Let's start with the conscious and unconscious bias.
Mr. Pettipas: In terms of the nature of bias in the hiring process, in part it comes to our monitoring. We are always looking at a number of our statistical analyses to tell us how we are doing in applications with respect to employment equity groups. How are we doing at appointment with respect to employment equity groups? What are we looking at in the context of being representative within the population of the public service's key indicators, amongst many others, to let us know if there are any signals in there that tell us that we need to pay particular attention in certain areas? That's limited to the employment equity groups in terms of how we do that work currently.
We also have a number of checks and balances established within the system to focus on merit, quite frankly, and to reduce the potential for bias.
From most of what we're seeing, we're not seeing any signals to tell us that there is systemic bias, necessarily, as a result of that ongoing monitoring and oversight.
That said, we spend a tremendous amount of energy on constantly testing our assessment tools. In the development of our tools, we'll work with a number of communities to ensure that we're testing them and adapting them where we see any potential problems associated with the assessment tools we develop.
I will turn to my colleague Robert McSheffrey, because he has spent a lot of time in this particular area. I think he can add to that.
Robert McSheffrey, Director General, Personnel Psychology Centre, Public Service Commission of Canada: We're constantly seized with the issue of trying to minimize bias in the staffing and assessment process. We have an application system that screens individuals electronically, so it does that in a very objective and electronic fashion.
We encourage, as much as possible, the use of standardized tests, which are standardized instruments in terms of the way they're developed, administered and scored. We are increasingly moving towards online tests that are objectively scored.
We're also trying to introduce elements of universal design into these tests so that they are as accessible as possible to as wide of range of individuals as possible. We will involve large numbers of employment equity members in the design and the development of tests, and we'll pilot them with large numbers of users. Some of our more important tests — our public service entrance exams, for example, were piloted with 35,000 individuals across the country. We're really trying to learn from a large and very diverse sample and learn from the modifications and improvements that come out of those piloting exercises.
As my colleague mentioned in his opening remarks, we will offer assessment accommodations if tests need to be adapted for individuals who might have special needs or disabilities.
We're heavily invested in the training business as well. We will train individuals on rating errors, bias and unconscious bias. We will offer workshops. We have on our website a number of guides for fairly assessing individuals in a diverse workplace, for assessing individuals with disabilities and so on. We'll do workshops on best practices as well.
These are just some of the mechanisms that we're currently engaged in to minimize bias in our processes.
Mr. Pettipas: I would add that in our large intakes, like our post-secondary recruitment campaigns where we go across the country, we leverage the totality of that in terms of the electronic screening. Our test can be taken at home within your own setting and with your own adaptive technologies. So we do apply those in a number of areas on the recruitment side as well.
Senator Omidvar: Staying with bias, I'm sure you have read the recent research coming out of the University of Toronto on name-based biases, which has validated that names and ethnic-sounding origins unfairly disadvantage certain people over others in terms of even getting in the door.
Do you anonymize resumés and applications?
Mr. Pettipas: No, we don't require it. As I mentioned with the delegated system, we have certain requirements we put in place. That's not one of our requirements. That doesn't mean an organization could not do that, but we do not require for all organizations to anonymize material.
To the first part of your question, yes, we are aware of that. Equally in other jurisdictions, I think there are efforts under way to remove certain identifying sorts of information from applications.
As I mentioned, we're confident in our system in that regard, but by definition, we're always interested in looking at new methods and models. This is one we're looking at insofar as what it would look like in a Canadian context.
Senator Omidvar: If you do a pilot on anonymizing resumés, we would love to see the results. In a small cohort of 350-plus staff, we could also do some innovative things that may not work out. But I will share with you there are jurisdictions in Europe that have tested and implemented anonymized resumés as a way of increasing the bar on fairness and merit without unconscious bias getting in the way.
Senator Marshall: That's interesting.
Senator Tannas: Very interesting.
Senator Omidvar: I want to ask the next question on your assessment of the depth of diversity into management and leadership positions in the public service. That is not just who's working, but who's working where.
I have to make a comment. I assume I'm seeing the leadership of PSAC here. I'm assuming you are the leaders in your institution.
Mr. Pettipas: We are part of the leadership group.
Senator Omidvar: I'm certainly hoping the full cohort of your leaders looks far more representative of the diversity of our country than this cohort. Let me just make that comment.
When I read the reports on employment equity, I am very happy that in most demographic groups, you are actually almost close to labour market availability — almost — outside of Canadians of native and Indigenous origin. I believe that was the last report.
But I'm always wondering where these people are located. Is the ladder to advancement and leadership equally progressive and unbiased as your intake appears to be and as you are telling us?
Mr. Pettipas: First, let me just respond to your last comment. We would happily share information with you if we were to pilot, in any respect, anonymizing parts of applications. Absolutely.
And I actually take your point that sometimes small organizations are well positioned to innovate relative to larger organizations.
With respect to your second question, I don't know if I can respond to it in totality in that we focus on the appointment process. With respect to the composition of the federal public service, that's more the domain of the employer in the context of Treasury Board. Some of those questions are probably best asked of the employer in terms of the mix within. We really do focus on the appointment process, per se, and that's sort of where our mandate starts and ends.
Referring back to some of the data, I can tell you that where we do see items that we think are worthwhile considering further, they are areas where we see persons with disabilities and application rates and appointment rates are below. That allows us to tilt our attention in that direction. We have taken a look at that to find out if there is something in play in that context within the appointment process, which is where we focus our attention. That's one area where we have started to dig to see what factors could be contributing to that.
In that instance, one is that we do recognize that we, as a population, according to the Treasury Board statistics, are representative of workforce availability, yet our applications and appointments are below. So we're looking at the factors that contribute to that. Is it our recruitment model? Are we bringing people in at a certain point? We have an entry-level recruitment model. Is that fostering part of that? Is it mobility?
I'm sharing what we're starting to think through, because our view is to figure out what factors could be contributing. Are there mobility constraints, potentially geographically or interdepartmentally?
We look at things on the appointment side. I'm just not well positioned to talk to you about within the composition of the workforce more generally.
Senator Omidvar: Madam Chair, maybe we could get the President of the Treasury Board.
How are you doing with veterans?
Mr. Pettipas: That's a great question. As you're aware, with the Veterans Hiring Act, there were a number of adjustments made, including the establishment of priority entitlements for veterans' mobility, provisions and preference.
Without getting into the details of all that, we are seeing positive momentum in areas that we play a particular role in, which is in ensuring that those given priority entitlements effectively understand them. Medically released veterans understand those entitlements, for instance, and they are in a position to avail themselves of job opportunities as they arrive in the federal public service. We are seeing positive momentum in terms of the number of individuals who are being placed in positions as a result of those priority entitlements.
We also see a keen interest from our colleagues at the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada, who play a very strong role in supporting the employment of veterans. We work closely with those partners in terms of our component of this around the priority entitlements.
We have also noticed there that, once again, we need to look at what adaptations we need to make. One thing we've done at the Public Service Commission is to hire a couple of veterans to basically perform a navigator role, to work with their colleague veterans to be able to understand the employment model and how to effectively apply through it. In many instances, people haven't applied to the federal public service in this context. So we're playing that particular role and we are seeing positive momentum.
I can tell you that we're also having interest beyond the core federal public service, as I believe you're indicating as well. We are looking at ways and means to support separate employers to be able to equally take advantage of a very skilled workforce that has a lot to offer.
Senator Omidvar: When you say you're doing well with veterans, what am I supposed to make of that? What's the number: 2,000, 3,000, 10,000?
Mr. Pettipas: We're seeing positive momentum. I believe that probably in the first three quarters of this year we have seen as many or more appointments of veterans with priority entitlements as we did last year. I'll look to Nathalie on the specific numbers.
Senator Omidvar: I would like specifics.
Mr. Pettipas: I believe that 25 per cent of individuals with entitlements are being placed currently, but I want that validated.
Nathalie Roy, Director, Data Services and Analysis Directorate, Public Service Commission of Canada: I hate to say that on appointments, we do not have the data yet. But for the entitlements?
Geoff Zerr, Acting Director General, Policy Development Directorate, Public Service Commission of Canada: On the entitlements, again, the data is a bit old. Unfortunately, Phoenix has created some data mining issues. I hate to even say that word.
So the data that we have unfortunately goes from April 1, 2015 when the VHA came into effect to March 31, 2016, so it's already a year out of date. That was very new in the context of the hiring act coming into force, so veterans were just starting to apply. They were getting interested; they were learning about the system.
The numbers that we have are really not a reflection of where we've come since then, because over the last year, of course, all of that has evolved and there's been a lot more interest.
We're finding that veterans were applying to one quarter of the jobs that were open to the public. So that's a fair number of jobs that they were applying to. Those jobs that are internal to the public service, half of the internal positions, veterans and CF members were applying for those jobs.
There was a lot of interest in the jobs. We just don't have a lot of data around the appointment rates because of the data issues. We're hopeful that we're going to get some of that soon and we'll be able to provide more comprehensive reporting on this.
We put a lot of time and energy into ensuring that veterans have access, and of course there is a lot of impact. A lot of medically released veterans, for example, are persons with disabilities, which is one of the EE groups. It has an impact on that group and the level of representation could go up, so we're very interested in that.
Of course, there's a strong political interest in it as well, so we're working closely with VAC and DND to make sure that we can provide a comprehensive picture.
Senator Omidvar: It's a matter of national interest, I would say.
Mr. Zerr: Absolutely.
Senator Tannas: I'm wondering if you have a role around targeting — and I'm thinking specifically — it's a good example, anyway — of Aboriginal people. You know the old corny saying from out west: You hunt where the ducks are.
I'm just wondering if you actually look at jobs in certain departments and certain places and say, "You know what, guys, you've got a wonderful bunch of jobs here and you've got a lot of Aboriginals in your area. You shouldn't be hiring 7 per cent. You should be hiring 30 per cent," making up for the office tower here that has nobody.
Do you do that kind of work? Is Fisheries over-performing? Is Parks Canada over-performing when it comes to Aboriginals, or do they mail it in for their 7 per cent?
Mr. Zerr: I can speak a little bit to that. There are sectors where there's a strong emphasis on hiring Aboriginal employees, and I'll pull an example that is not INAC, because of course they aim to have a high percentage.
The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch at Health Canada serves the Aboriginal population across Canada, and they want at least 50 per cent of their workforce to be Aboriginal, but they are far below that. There are massive challenges attracting and retaining employees of Aboriginal background to work in these jobs, as they are finding out. They thought they could put a plan in place and perhaps get there within a few years, but it's been a much longer timeline for them to increase that percentage, even incrementally, to get to a level that's representative of where they want to be.
Senator Tannas: They should maybe think about moving. That might be an answer, but that's for another day.
In terms of where there are lots of jobs — and I understand what you're saying there; it's a tiny little department — but where there are great swaths of jobs, are you involved in any of that, pushing Parks Canada to over-hire in specific areas, or people with disabilities? Are our call centres overrepresented with folks with physical disabilities? Is that kind of thing going on?
The Chair: Or Aboriginal people in Aboriginal Affairs, in the department.
Senator Tannas: Yes, in Aboriginal Affairs I know that they do, but they also have the same challenge, that all the jobs are here in Ottawa.
The Chair: Job concentration.
Ms. Roy: We do report on appointments to the public service by geographic area and EE group, so this is available. It is open data. It is accessible to the public, to Canadians.
Also, Treasury Board just released its latest annual report on employment equity, so we have made progress in terms of the executive group, but also there's a breakdown by department. That can give a flavour, if you are primarily concentrated in one area, about how you're doing.
Also, there's a workforce availability — I know that you use a regional one. We use a national workforce availability.
Senator Tannas: That's good. That gives you, I presume, or somebody — or is it us? Are we supposed to parse this and figure out that you're missing an opportunity in Vancouver Island and the Fisheries Department? Or do you guys actually do that in some way, feed that back and say, "Gosh, you've got way more workforce availability opportunity for Aboriginals in these areas and for other disability or visible minorities in these areas. You need to up your game above what the raw national number is." Do you do that? Does anybody do that? Is that not a good idea?
Mr. Pettipas: In terms defining organizational needs, organizations do and we do as a department, not as a central agency, say, "Across our organization, do we have the right mix within occupational groups, within geographic placements?" Because I think diversity drives innovation and good service, and I don't think you want that consolidated just in pockets of your organization. Organizations do look at that.
Do we play a particular role under our authorities with respect to some of that? Not as much. We tend to come into play on providing advice and support services around, how do you now attract? What are the best practices around being in the communities to attract the individuals? We had a model before where we just put up an advertisement and hoped people applied.
We had people that were up North recently. We're spending a lot of time trying to understand how we get all the different segments of society to participate in the application process. Then we support and help those organizations, because there are many, as Geoff mentioned, that were identified. We have a certain need of this nature for this particular reason on our business model, our geographic footprint.
We also provide advice on assessment. One of the examples you were using was Aboriginal peoples. We have developed a cluster of expertise in that particular area, in fact, for that express purpose, which is to support organizations on targeted approaches to outreach, to attraction and to assessment. Even in some of our models we have changed the amount of time we leave the application processes open based on the feedback we have heard from certain communities in terms of the deliberation required to actually make a decision to apply to the federal public service.
I don't know if you want to add to any of that, Robert.
Mr. McSheffrey: I would say that one of our key roles is around promotion. One of the things we do is partner with other organizations to assist them with advice and guidance and to make some of our products and services available to them. For example, we have been partnering with the employer on an Indigenous youth summer employment opportunity program to get greater representation of the Indigenous population working as students in the federal public service.
We're also working with a cluster of departments, including INAC, Treasury Board and Correctional Service Canada, on an Aboriginal leadership development initiative. So it's at the other end, not at the recruitment end, to see what we can do to increase the representation of Aboriginals at leadership levels. We're making a number of workshops on leadership competencies, developmental assessment tools and other instruments available to them to help foster promotion rates amongst that group in the public service.
So there's a lot of partnership and cooperation going on that the Public Service Commission is involved with.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: In the Senate, we have statistics. I don't know how reliable they are because they are based on self-identification, but we can get some idea of what percentage of our people are Indigenous, what percentage of our people have disabilities, and I guess the women are obvious.
Are you able to give statistics like that? We have a chart with numbers on it. I'm an accountant, so I really like the numbers; it gives us some idea of how we're doing. It's not 100 per cent accurate, but it does give us some idea. Do you have that also? Did I understand you might have that or Treasury Board has it?
Mr. Pettipas: We have that data, absolutely, by the designated employment equity groups, similar to what you would have. Certainly the employer has that in terms of the population of the public service. We collect that data we pay a lot of attention to it, in fact, on application against workforce availability. We look at appointment in each group against workforce availability. We can share all of that with you.
Senator Marshall: I would like to see those statistics.
Senator Tannas: You mentioned geography and also by department. Could you provide that to us?
Ms. Roy: Yes, we will definitely send that to you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I find that really interesting.
Ms. Roy: We did look at your numbers to see how they compare in terms of representation with the overall public service, PSEA, and the smaller organization. In 2015-16, the Senate surpassed the public service in representation of women.
Senator Marshall: Oh, yes!
Senator Tannas: Gold star.
Ms. Roy: The Senate has been on par and slightly higher than the public service for persons with disabilities. The public service, though, has a higher representation in terms of Aboriginal peoples.
Senator Marshall: Oh, that's interesting. You do?
Ms. Roy: But you only have offices in Ottawa, in the NCR, so that could be a factor. We will be pleased to send that your way.
The Chair: On visible minorities, how are we doing?
Ms. Roy: The Senate has always surpassed the public service for representation of visible minorities.
The Chair: I want to go back to workplace availability. What census year are you relying on now? It used to drive me crazy; forever you were relying on 2006.
Mr. Pettipas: I believe 2011.
Ms. Roy: It is based on the National Household Survey 2011 and the Canadian Survey on Disability 2012.
The Chair: Now, if we look at the different groups, for the census, I assume women are 50 per cent. How many do we have in the public service?
Ms. Roy: In terms of workforce availability?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Roy: Women, 52.5. That's the WFA. And in the public service, 54.4 as of March 31, 2016.
The Chair: And Aboriginal people?
Ms. Roy: Workforce availability 3.4, and 5.2 in terms of representation.
The Chair: And disabled?
Ms. Roy: WFA is 4.4, and 5.6.
The Chair: And for people of colour?
Ms. Roy: WFA 13 per cent, and we have a representation of 14.5.
The Chair: So you are above? You are sort of meeting, plus more, right? But it's 2011, so we won't get too excited about it, but at least it's not 2006, which was driving me crazy. I used to be Chair of Human Rights and we studied this issue a lot.
On diversity, do you encourage people to apply for jobs? For example, one of the things that really bothers me on people with disability is often we have bigger numbers, but it's because people like me have become disabled on the job, and it's not because they were encouraged to apply. I'm really anxious to know, especially for disabled people — I'm now sick at work, so I'm disabled, but I wasn't when I came here. It may be difficult for you to tell, but how are you encouraging disabled people?
Ms. Roy: You are right; disability tends to increase with age, so we have targeted outreach activities for persons with disabilities. We may have some examples.
Mr. McSheffrey: We have conducted over 100 events so far this year targeted specifically to employment equity groups. A good number of those were towards persons with disabilities. As one example, we have gone out to universities — Concordia University — and held information sessions with students with disabilities to talk about what's required to enter into the public service, make them aware of their right to an accommodation and the steps involved in applying in the process. We have had a number of other events like this, career fairs and so on, where we're looking specifically to target that group and other designated groups.
The Chair: That's very useful.
Senator Tannas may not agree, but we semi-agreed that one of the groups that we would add to our diversity study was veterans.
Senator Tannas: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Zerr will tell you; we just had a veterans meeting, and I was asking them about how we are encouraging people to join the federal public service. Mr. Zerr may correct me, but I understood them to say that maybe more brochures, maybe more awareness. Are you looking at doing more? We certainly are going to, and if we can learn from you, what are you doing to encourage veterans to join the public service?
Mr. Zerr: As Tim mentioned, the fact that we have navigators on board I think has been a very positive step.
The Chair: So you were at the meeting. Are these navigators different from what Mr. Parent was talking about or the same?
Mr. Zerr: They are internal to our commission.
The Chair: Mr. Parent, the Veterans Ombudsman, was speaking about navigators. This is within the commission and this was navigators for the veterans outside.
Mr. Zerr: They are there to help people become accustomed to the whole culture of applying to a public service position, which is quite a daunting process when you have had no experience in it. A lot of veterans come out of their service, and if they are medically released, they have health issues and other challenges that could impact their ability to understand the culture and the language of the public service, and they need assistance.
So we do that internally within the Public Service Commission, but Veterans Affairs itself has set up a whole unit as well to assist veterans in the transition from military service to a public service or a non-public service career. Part of that is to take what they've learned and what their experience has been in the military and to convert that into language that resonates with hiring managers.
If I was a sergeant leading a platoon, I have a whole bunch of leadership qualities, but I don't know how to necessarily put that in a CV. Veterans Affairs will help them write that out and prepare a CV. They'll look at job postings, the essential qualifications and what you've got in terms of experience, and figure out a way to translate your military experience into language that a hiring manager in the public service will understand and think, "Oh, that guy is actually qualified or could be qualified for this position, and he certainly seems to meet the screening criteria, so I'm going to screen him in and interview him." That's a really positive thing as well, whereas before they were pretty much left to their own devices to figure this out on their own. There's a lot of assistance now to help with that transition.
The Chair: It's not for this committee, but could you provide this to us anyway if you don't mind? We are looking for how we can encourage veterans and what recommendations we can make within our own structure.
Mr. Pettipas: Maybe I could add one thing there. The human resources continuum has so many shared roles in the public service, and so there are very few things we do by ourselves. We work in partnership with a lot of central agency partners and organizations.
As Geoff mentioned, Veterans Affairs Canada is putting a lot of energy into a veterans hiring push and doing a lot of the thinking and forward looks on how we promote and attract.
But in terms of some of the things that we look at in addition to this role we are playing on some of the components with the navigators — and this may be something to reflect on — is that it's also in thinking through how you design and advertise the qualifications. We often default to referring to recent experience of a nature that is only garnered in the public service, and it's not purposeful in nature. Sometimes it's just stepping back to say, "Let's ensure we're not inadvertently screening out people who, in certain instances, have deep experience that is not that exact nature, but perhaps it would be adequate for meeting the qualifications of the position." Sometimes it's things as simple as that, I think, as well.
The Chair: One of the things that I found frustrating when looking at this, and Dan and I were on this forever when he was the Clerk of the Human Rights Committee, is that decisions, or the act, are central. Decisions are made centrally, and yet it's the deputies who have the responsibility to hire. We also had one recommendation in a Senate report that maybe the deputy should get a bonus if they meet the diversity targets. It didn't come up and it wasn't accepted.
My challenge is that I'm not so much saying, "As the hiring happens, the numbers happen," but we still don't have a deputy of colour. Maybe that has changed in the last few months. I know we have one deputy minister who is Aboriginal.
What I'm saying is we're not into numbers at this point. What I'm saying is you may have some, especially women, because we have a lot of women in the bottom ranks, but how are they being encouraged? Is there a sense of giving them mentorship? Is there a sense of how to apply for applications?
Let me give you an example. For me, as a young, woman lawyer, the partners in my firm didn't see it necessary to mentor me. They mentored my colleagues who were around me. We were a pool of 12, and every partner took on one to mentor. I always have this theory that to get an education — I got my law degree — is number one, but I don't get very far if I don't get the experience, like the files you get, who mentors you, where you are placed and the kinds of things you do.
That's where I think that women and other diverse groups fall. I'm going to talk to you about "merit-based" in a minute. It's not that they don't have the education and the experience; it's who is mentoring them through the processes. Could we learn from you as to how you are doing it?
Mr. Pettipas: I think there are a couple of things we could share with you. One is that I think, first and foremost, we are seeing an increased interest and appetite across organizations, at least from the role we play in terms of seeking advice around a lot of these issues, which I think is a very positive sign that people are engaged and taking this seriously.
I think collectively we need to leverage surveys and understand how our staffing system is functioning at all times, not from strictly a numbers perspective, but understanding what the rhythm is within the organization. That's a big part of where we went with our new direction of staffing. We moved away from static reporting to actually saying that our expectation is that you understand how your staffing system is functioning as a living system in the perception of those who live within your organization or who are attempting to come within your organization.
On the second component, in terms of the ways and means to provide support, I may ask Robert to touch on one of the areas where we actually do something very similar to that, which is in some of our executive counselling services.
Mr. McSheffrey: We have an area of the commission, our executive counselling services, that's set up to provide exactly the kind of coaching and support that you're talking about. It's very much focused on senior managerial and leadership levels.
Geoff was talking earlier about how members of the forces often aren't all that great at packaging their experience and their expertise for public service jobs.
What we have found among a number of the designated groups, including women, is that once they are ready to leave their professional and technical ranks behind and join the leadership cadre, they aren't necessarily as test-savvy as other groups. They are not necessarily as exposed to what it means to be part of an executive selection board, what the expectations are of an executive selection board and how to package their leadership competencies to speak to what other individuals might be looking for in terms of leadership.
We've got services where we join the expertise of experts in assessment with retired senior public servants who were former ADMs, former directors general and former senior leaders in the public service, and they will provide coaching services for women and Aboriginals, and so on, on how best to capture your experience and express your competencies so that we're levelling the playing field in terms of communicating effectively with people across the table in the middle of a selection process.
The Chair: I know there is an executive program in B.C., because I see them on the plane often. What is it, accelerated?
Mr. Pettipas: It used to be the Accelerated Executive Development Program.
The Chair: That's different from what you're talking about.
Mr. Pettipas: This is different. This is more targeted.
The Chair: That's different. Here, anybody can go for coaching. For that, you have to be selected, right?
I was talking about mentorship in the sense of encouraging people to apply, and you were talking about coaching. Has a mentorship program been set up?
Mr. McSheffrey: Not within the public service.
Mr. Pettipas: Yes.
The Chair: I have a real challenge. All my life I have heard it has to be merit-based, and to me, in court, that means the four or five groups we are talking about are not merit. They don't merit the job. They are not smart enough. You know that I'm going to the extreme. I don't mean that, but it's always that we can't find the most competent person. It always used to happen with women: "Show us a woman; we would love to hire a woman, but we can't find merit-based women or competent women to do the job."
I'm always worried that in a merit-based system there is a subjective and an objective. I liked your explanation when you talked about where everybody has the same applications and the same testing. I was pleased to hear that. I really appreciated that.
But after that stage, it gets to the next stage, and what I hear from my community in B.C. is that's when there is a drop-off rate. Many, many apply. I used to have those figures in my head when we were doing the study, but the drop- off rate happens after. They get to that stage and they get the marks, but then it's not enough. "Am I wrong? What happened?" That's when the subjective comes in. It's not all objective, right? There is an interview stage.
Mr. McSheffrey: That's where I think we have a role to play in terms of training and outreach. The Public Service Commission does information sessions and webinars and makes various guides available to individuals, as I mentioned earlier.
We're looking to train people on bias. There was an earlier question on unconscious bias, and we know that that can be a real issue. People have certain halos in mind that they are barely aware of, and they want to hire, whether they are conscious of it or not, people who tend to be like themselves. The more that we can make individuals aware of these rating errors and unconscious biases, the better off we will be.
We also offer training on structured interviews and how to do effective interviews. The more that we can have standardized interviews that are scored in a standardized way according to a rating guide, which is something we strongly encourage, I think we will chip away at these sources of bias bit by bit. That's what we're trying to do through sharing best practices, through workshops, webinars and that kind of thing.
The Chair: I come from B.C., and one of the challenges people in the public service have is not enough French training. To go higher up the ranks, you need French training. But the second thing is that there is not enough French training provided in my province. If you were in Ottawa — I'm exaggerating, I'm sure — you can easily get two years of training in French because the monies come from the department where you are working. There's not the enthusiasm in B.C. to send somebody off for two years of French training.
I think this is part of being merit-based. In my province, people are not able to have your jobs because they don't have the merit or the competency in French. Do you know what I'm trying to say? How are you addressing that?
Mr. McSheffrey: We're not responsible for language training.
The Chair: I know that. But you still have to look at —
Mr. McSheffrey: Yes, at least in terms of performance of designated groups on our language tests, that is something that we watch and monitor very carefully.
The Chair: That's what I'm interested in. How are you addressing that?
Mr. McSheffrey: We do continuous monitoring of our standardized tests, and that includes our second language evaluation tools for reading, writing and oral proficiency. We look at how the groups do on each of these tests, and we go right down to the item level. Are there some questions that don't work with visible minority groups? Are there some questions that people who self-identify as having a disability seem to be scoring poorly on? And we will eliminate those questions and tweak our tests.
Most recently, we have done a monitoring on our test of reading and found that all groups are performing effectively, that the tool is valid and reliable. We saw some small differences for Aboriginals on the French test, at the highest level of the French test. We have taken note of the fact that that's consistent with latest census data where Aboriginals self-identify as not being quite as bilingual on the French side as other Canadians. But apart from that, designated groups are doing quite well on these tools. That's a different answer than the regional question that you're asking, and I know that.
The Chair: Anyway, that is my pet peeve.
Senator Tannas: Let me ask you just a question, and this may be my own towering ignorance; I suspect it is. In each one of your jobs, is the requirement there for you to speak both languages?
Mr. Pettipas: It certainly is in mine.
Senator Tannas: Why?
Mr. Zerr: All executive positions.
Senator Tannas: You're joking.
The Chair: Yes, that's why B.C. or your province can never come here, or rarely.
Senator Tannas: That's a whole other — I had no idea. That's crazy. That is absolutely nuts.
The Chair: And in our provinces they don't provide it, so they cannot come —
Senator Tannas: Well, that's the other side of it. It's not available.
The Chair: I have so many people who are contacting me saying, "I cannot go to Ottawa because they will not give me French," and if they were here — I mean, you know this. This is very unfair.
Senator Tannas: Wouldn't it make sense to say to somebody, "You've got the merit but you don't have the language. If you want to come to Ottawa, you come here for two years in the role, and it's a condition of the employment that at X day you pass the test, and if you don't then you get to go back to Vancouver, but if you do, then you're fine." I'm actually floored. I didn't realize it was that pervasive.
The Chair: That is for everybody, but it's not provided because it comes out of the department's budget. Official language training comes out of that particular department's budget, and it depends on the goodwill of the department head if he wants to give up that budget.
That's another issue, and this is something I have to get off my chest every time, because I come from B.C.
Senator Tannas: Well, you've got it on my chest now.
The Chair: So we're going to work together.
Mr. Zerr: Some positions are identified as non-imperative for language requirements. Other positions are identified as imperative, so they have to meet that language requirement upon appointment. But for non-imperative positions, someone can come in and they have a two-year window to meet the language requirement, and that can be extended for another two years. So there's a four-year window.
The Chair: Yes, there is.
Mr. Zerr: And the expectation isn't any different if you're in Ottawa or Vancouver. The employee has to commit to learning the language through whatever support the department can provide. And you're right; there are budget challenges everywhere, including here in Ottawa.
We have put together an approach inside the commission where we have a language instructor in both French and English on staff, and people can sign up for non-statutory language training to help. A lot of employees take night classes, off-hours, even here in Ottawa, to brush up on their skills.
For people who can't meet that window of time for the language requirement in the non-imperative positions, if there's a medical reason, they can ask for an exclusion from the requirement. So there is a process to accommodate people who have a legitimate medical reason. It could be a learning disability; it could be hearing. There are all kinds of different reasons why someone might not be able to learn a second language. They can apply for an exemption, and that can be considered.
The Chair: I promise that before I leave the Senate that geographic imbalance is going to stop, because it really bothers me. I am really angry about it.
But having said all this, the reason we wanted to meet with you is we want to learn from you. I'm really impressed by these figures from a few years ago, so you have done a good job. You may want to provide that for us.
What lessons can we learn from you on what you are doing to encourage the four groups? I'll say five. You have mentioned some, Mr. McSheffrey, but what are some best practices that we in the Senate can learn from you that we may want to implement here?
Mr. Pettipas: We have increasingly recognized that sometimes when we're just focused on listening to our users, we're actually making adjustments that are benefiting not just employment equity groups but also creating a more inclusive model. We have recently made significant changes to the student application process for jobs in government. It was a very lengthy, challenging application process to find your way through. It is significantly less lengthy and less problematic today than it was two months ago.
One of the things I wanted to share is that we have increasingly turned our attention to talking to our users, whoever they may be across the country, and letting them help design how an application process best works for them. And what we're finding is that a high tide raises all boats in some very large effect.
We're increasingly shifting a lot of our energy from looking at the core requirements on the policy side, and creating more space for hiring managers and HR professionals to then not put their minds to "What are all the little boxes I need to tick?" but to create a space to say, "How do I live in a values-based staffing system?" It's to allow them to consume advice — some of the things that Robert was talking about — putting our energy into not just on the rules but a lot more on the advice and the approaches to assessment.
Assessment matters, as you mentioned earlier, and we have substantive expertise in that particular area. We have recognized that our best model is to share that. We would be happy to share as much of that as we can with your organization. We recognize with smaller organizations that we needed to spend less time watching over them and more time helping them to be successful in these areas.
With respect to employment equity and diversity more generally, we're focused on an inclusive process. That's really where we see the value proposition. We have positive measures in terms of supporting targeted, restricted area selection. A lot of the approach is identifying means to address gaps that may be identified in an organization at different levels on the cross-cuts you're referring to. We are increasingly spending a lot of time on developing a universal design to things we are doing to level the playing field for all who are involved.
Our outreach, we're finding, is not just making people aware, whether it's in high schools across the North or at universities in specific communities, whether it's employment equity groups or beyond. We're making sure they are aware of jobs and how to apply for them, but we're also learning what we're not doing right and making adjustments to our application processes or approaches to assessment.
I know it probably goes unsaid, but we're listening a lot more and being much more active with those that we want to employ in the future.
We're also recognizing that we need to get passive candidates. We need to go out and find people more than just expecting people to find their way through the labyrinth of applications to the federal public service.
Those are very thematic in a sense. I do appreciate the question because we hope we can do something like that.
The Chair: That's one of the reasons for this.
Mr. Pettipas: Yes.
Are there more targeted pieces you would like to add to that, Robert or Geoff.
Mr. Zerr: I think we are spending a lot of time and energy targeting our hiring managers as well. It's important not just to encourage the groups to apply but for the hiring managers to proactively consider what some of the barriers could be to those groups applying and to start addressing that stuff long before they even launch a process.
So over the last year, there has been a focus on plain language writing — it sounds so simple, yet it has such a big impact — culturally sensitive language and multiple formats. So can they apply not just sending their application through an email, but are there alternative ways for them to submit their application so that a person with a disability feels comfortable getting involved in that application process and knowing they have a mechanism to send their application in?
Communications is a big one as well. We have heard a lot of examples where people apply to jobs, their application goes into a black hole and maybe eight months later someone contacts them, maybe they don't. So we're telling managers, be accountable for the hiring decisions that you make and for the processes that you run. Actively communicate how you're going to assess people. Tell them the criteria. Stay in touch with the candidates so that they know what's going on and people feel that they are part of the process and that they know who they can ask a question of or seek accommodation from.
Accommodation itself is very important as well. There's a lot that has to be done and a lot of varying types of accommodation that can be requested of hiring managers. They need to be sensitive to these types of questions that are coming in. They need to know how to handle them.
I'm sure Robert would agree that a lot of questions come in from public service managers to the psychology centre in terms of accommodation requests. How do they manage that and what can they do to make it better for candidates? We're trying to sensitize our management community to these issues long before they even launch a process so that it's not done on the fly. It becomes ingrained in the way they do their day-to-day work, and they own the accountability around how they are running a process.
Mr. Pettipas: And the last component we're being critical on is the accountability associated with the determination of a selection. If I can just talk about three quick areas, which I think you're probably well aware of but I think are baseline and still matter a lot.
One is if you want to hire into a diverse organization, you need diversity on your assessment boards. I think that's obviously an important component.
I think it's always worth considering this: Can you have multiple assessment tools to assess the same qualification, which in and of itself vets out some bias or potential for it.
Consulting employment equity groups in the development of your assessment models and tools is something that we're increasingly looking at. We're looking at our external application processes. We are absolutely going to be talking to all Canadians, but ensuring that we speak to the employment equity groups, as represented in different segments, to inform the development of it as we go along the path.
I know those are more standard in nature, but I think they should not be forgotten either.
The Chair: If you see anything, we're going to do this on a regular basis, so do send us information. We also don't want to hog it; we want to share with you something we have done really well here. In my 16 years here, a huge difference has been our page program. We have pages from across the country. I'm sure Mr. Presseau will gladly share with you how we have done it. We are all very proud. We still have a lot of work to do, but we have come a long way.
Senator Marshall: We are moving in the right direction.
The Chair: Yes, we are, and I truly believe that a very concerted effort happened to make it more geographic and representative of Canadians.
Senator Tannas, you had a question?
Senator Tannas: I did, but we got into it. Mine was going to be on official languages and what barriers that's presenting, if any, on achieving the goals of the various equity groups, but I think we had a good enough discussion.
Senator Marshall: I don't know what I missed when I was upstairs speaking. Did we cover the part where we are looking at hiring someone to take a look at our processes to see what we can do different?
Have you ever had an external group come in and review your processes?
Mr. Pettipas: Absolutely. Like an employment systems review model? Yes, we have, and I would say benefit from it in every way you can. An objective third party is usually quite beneficial. I think in some of the things we talked about, they'll find their own way, I would expect, but we learned lessons where we made improvements in some of our standardized tests as a result of what came back to us. You don't know what you don't know in many instances.
Senator Marshall: That's right. Someone tells you what you didn't know.
Mr. Pettipas: Yes.
Equally, on job advertisements, you would have an electronic application system. In a lot of those areas, your approaches to assessment, I'm sure you'll benefit, as we have.
Senator Marshall: Did you just select somebody or did you call for proposals? Or did you know there was an organization that specialized —
Mr. Pettipas: I have to be honest with you; I was not in the commission when that was undertaken, so I don't know the procurement model that was followed.
The Chair: Could you provide that for us?
Senator Marshall: I would be interested in seeing it, if there's something you can share with us, because we're looking at that now. We can always learn new things.
I am glad. I was very interested in listening to the Public Service Commission.
Senator Tannas: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I knew that you knew something about this; I wasn't quite sure what.
The Chair: We may ask for more help before the end of our study. You have given us a lot of very positive information. This is now a subcommittee, so hopefully it will be on a regular basis and we can learn from you. We are all in the same boat trying to be representative of our country, so I want to thank you for agreeing readily to work with us, to be here, and we look forward to working with you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pettipas: We remain available and appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
The Chair: We will continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)