THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 13, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met by video conference this day at 2 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of Part 4 of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.
Senator Chantal Petitclerc (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. My name is Chantal Petitclerc. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Before we begin, I would like to remind you that we’re conducting this meeting by video conference. I’ll spare you the long version of the instructions since we saw each other this morning.
[English]
I will remind you that you are responsible for turning your microphone on and off during this meeting. Please use the raised-hand feature and if there are any complications or challenges with technology or interpretation, please let us know. Finally, I remind everyone that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed.
[Translation]
I’ll now introduce the committee members who are participating this afternoon. We’re pleased to be here for this meeting. We have with us Senator R. Black; Senators Bovey, Frum, Dasko and Forest-Niesing; Senators Kutcher and Manning; and Senators Mégie, Moodie, Omidvar and Moncion.
We’re continuing our study of Bill C-30. We’re moving forward this afternoon with the study of Divisions 32 and 33. We’ll start with two panels, and then take a break from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. We’ll carry on in the evening with two more panels.
Our first witness will speak about Division 32, which amends the Old Age Security Act in order to increase the Old Age Security pension payable to people aged 75 and over by 10%. I want to welcome, from Employment and Social Development Canada, Kristen Underwood, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch.
Without further ado, Ms. Underwood, you can proceed with your opening remarks.
Kristen Underwood, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Thank you for having me today to speak to you about the changes proposed in the budget to increase the OAS pension for those 75 years and older by 10%. I don’t have many remarks. I’ll introduce you to the change and let you know a little bit about what is proposed.
The government is looking to increase the Old Age Security pension by 10% for those 75 years and older. As seniors get older, they tend to have lower incomes and often face higher health-related expenses because of onset of illness and disability. This vulnerability, at these older ages, is further compounded by a reduced ability to supplement income through paid work or by the risk of outliving savings, and the risk of becoming a widow or widower as people age. With this measure, the government is addressing the increased financial vulnerability that seniors face as they age.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the proposed change will happen in two stages. First, there will be a taxable one-time payment of $500 to be paid to seniors aged 75 years and older in August 2021, so this summer, to meet the immediate needs of OAS pensioners. Second, a permanent change will be made to increase the pension by 10% for all those aged 75 years and older, and that will start in July 2022, so next year.
This will strengthen the financial security of 3.3 million seniors, 56% of whom are women. Changes will also be made to the Old Age Security Act to exempt the one-time payment from the definition of income for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS.
That’s in a nutshell what the government is proposing to do.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for the presentation. We have some questions for you.
[English]
Senator Frum: Ms. Underwood, can you help us understand why the government decided to increase the OAS for Canadians over 75 instead of choosing to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, which targets the most vulnerable seniors? It’s hard to understand the policy rationale for a universal benefit versus a targeted benefit. I see the political rationale, particularly with the one-time payment in August of $500, but what is the policy rationale for this?
Ms. Underwood: As you know, the Old Age Security pension is a universal benefit for all seniors and, in this case, for all seniors over age 75. The policy rationale was to support that universal benefit and to support seniors as a large group of important contributors to our society.
Senator Frum: But, again, I would ask: Why not target the most vulnerable seniors who are living below a certain level, instead of making a universal payment?
Ms. Underwood: The payment is in the interest of supporting seniors who are facing increased costs as they age, and this is the case for all seniors over 75, and the decision was made that we would support the larger group.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank you for the presentation, Ms. Underwood. I want to follow on the same line of questioning that Senator Frum did. In fact, I’m very grateful that she asked my first question.
I want to go on with the policy side of this, if I may. I appreciate universal benefits, and I appreciate that there’s going to be a lot of tax back from those that perhaps don’t need it. My question also — I’m going to build on it for a minute. I know there are those who believe that this increase is going to be a burden on taxpayers themselves, so coming back to the policy side, I wonder if you could provide some statistics for us regarding whom the benefit will really aid and how you’re going to respond to those who feel it’s too rich and, at the same time, respond to those, as my colleague did, who are really in need and may not be benefiting from it sufficiently.
Can you give us an analysis, please, of whom this is going to benefit? And what are the responses to the taxpayers who are going to be paying for it?
Ms. Underwood: Thank you. I’ll start off by saying that, as you point out, senator, this is a taxable benefit. The increase to the Old Age Security pension is included in the OAS recovery tax. In addition, the $500 payment is also taxable.
When we look at seniors over 75, there is a larger proportion who are unemployed as well as not working. As people age, they tend to be working less, and so they have less access to that source of income. Also, there are higher rates of people with disabilities. Of people aged 75 and older, 47% have disabilities and 27% have severe disabilities.
In addition, there is a larger proportion of women in this older age group; 57% are women and 39% are widowed, so this is a population that is at higher risk, as you point out.
Senator Bovey: As one who has been twice widowed, I’m well aware of the issues of widows, even for those of us who aren’t 75 yet. Why 75? Why take an age like that rather than the personal circumstances of individuals, which the GIS would allow you to do?
Ms. Underwood: As people age, they are more likely to be in these situations, and so the decision of the government was to focus its attention on older seniors who have contributed to society for a longer period of time and to focus on this older age group as a universal benefit.
Senator Bovey: Were there consultations?
Ms. Underwood: Not on this specific item.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, Ms. Underwood.
Senator R. Black: How did the government come to the 10% increase and $500 payout? This might have been answered just a minute ago. Are these amendments based on consultations or on economic forecasting data and modelling, and if so, is the information publicly available?
I’ll jump in with my second question: Is this a permanent 10% increase or just a temporary measure? Thank you.
Ms. Underwood: I’ll start with the second one. It is a permanent increase starting in July 2022 for all seniors. The costing for the program was done by the Chief Actuary, as is normal practice for the Old Age Security system, and the assessment of the cost of the program was done by the Chief Actuary.
Senator R. Black: Thank you. Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: You explained that the assistance measures aren’t permanent, meaning that the $500 payment is a one-time payment, and that the other measures won’t take effect until July 2022. I’m wondering why you’re planning this now for such a late implementation, given the expectation of a budget in spring 2022.
[English]
Ms. Underwood: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, as you say, the permanent solution will be implemented in July of 2022. The $500 one-time payment this year is an interim measure to get us to the full implementation, so the proposed intention is to have a permanent increase for seniors 75 and older.
It does take some time to change the administration of the program and to implement this change through our systems so that we ensure that all seniors are paid the amounts. In order to be able to get a payment made quickly to seniors, we’ve put in a one-time payment of $500 this year as a transition measure to the permanent solution in July 2022. So the $500 is a transition measure to implement the full decision that the government has proposed to implement the change for July 2022.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: You applied these measures universally, rather than taking a more targeted approach. You have already answered questions on this.
This leads me to ask questions about the guaranteed minimum income or wage. To your knowledge, has anyone considered implementing this type of program, which also takes a similar universal approach, and if not, why not?
[English]
Ms. Underwood: I’m sorry, senator, I can’t answer that specific question. This is a universal benefit for seniors. The Old Age Security benefit has been a long-time universal benefit for seniors. I can’t comment on any other benefits that the government is looking at.
The Chair: That’s correct — I mean, that’s fine.
Ms. Underwood: That’s the right answer?
The Chair: I don’t know if it’s the right answer, but you are allowed your answer, is what I was aiming at.
Senator Manning: Thank you to our witness. My understanding is that it’s a universal benefit but the pension — you have an old-age pension side and there is a supplement. I know many seniors for whom the only income they have is exactly what they receive from the federal government in relation to the Old Age Security, or OAS, pension plus the supplement.
The increase here is going across the board to people 75 years old and over. Was there any discussion about addressing the concerns of poor seniors, people with less income, who don’t have any other government pensions or pensions from their work? In my case here, people have spent their lifetime in the fishing industry, and I wondered how we address their concerns. Has there been any discussion given to addressing those concerns in relation to increasing pensions?
Ms. Underwood: As I’ve mentioned, in this measure the intent was to provide a benefit for all seniors 75 years of age and older. It was meant to be for the larger group and not targeted to a particular subset of those seniors. This is a universal benefit for all those aged 75 years and older.
Senator Manning: The $500 that they receive this August is taxable. To make sure I’m following you correctly, is the 10% increase also taxable when it comes in during July 2022?
Ms. Underwood: That’s correct. It’s taxable at a slightly different rate because it’s part of the OAS recovery tax, but yes, both are taxable.
Senator Manning: Okay. You gave some statistics earlier in relation to those 75 and over, and the number of people who have a certain level of disability, as well as the number of people who have more severe disabilities.
Are there any statistics available to the committee for those 65 and over? The statistics you gave us have to do with people 75 and over. I wonder about the differences between those who are 65 and over.
Ms. Underwood: I do have some statistics for the 65-and-older group. They are less at risk. I could provide those to the committee following up afterwards, but [Technical difficulties] vulnerability of those 75 and older is higher.
Senator Manning: Sorry. I missed part of what the witness said.
The Chair: I think the screen froze. We might have some challenges with the connection.
Ms. Underwood, what I understood is that you do have those data and statistics and that you would be willing to provide them to this committee after the meeting. Am I correct?
Ms. Underwood: Yes, that’s correct, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Senator Manning: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Ms. Underwood, for being here. It’s very much appreciated.
My question is along the lines of Senator Frum’s and Senator Bovey’s.
According to the Ontario Long Term Care Association report in 2019, about 82% of individuals in long-term care are older than 75. Therefore, this is the target population. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data, the average cost of a room in a long-term care facility in Canada is about $3,000 a month, and if you’re in a memory care facility, that’s about $5,000 a month. The Old Age Security comes in at around $600 a month. How helpful is this going to be for our most vulnerable people, this 10% increase?
Ms. Underwood: The 10% increase amounts to about $766 a year for seniors who are receiving the full Old Age Security, remembering that Old Age Security is adjusted by the number of years lived in Canada. The Old Age Security system is part of the retirement income system, which includes the Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan and private retirement income savings. It provides additional support to those seniors and is a part of the larger retirement income system.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. Certainly, you’re absolutely right, and I understand that. We’re grateful that there has been an increase. I’m just wondering about how an increase of 10% is going to help the most vulnerable when those are the costs that they’re actually facing.
Ms. Underwood: I’m not sure what more to say. The increase is meant to help those who are older than 75 years of age and to provide some additional financial support for all older seniors.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, Ms. Underwood, for being with us today and answering our questions so patiently.
I want to pursue the question of statistics a little bit more. I’m being a bit dogged today about that. My apologies.
You talked about the statistics that you had on women. You talked about statistics that you had on individuals with disabilities. We haven’t heard anything about seniors who live in rural areas. We haven’t heard anything about Indigenous seniors or Black seniors. Do you collect disaggregated data? Do you have those data available to you to help you in your policy-making decisions?
Ms. Underwood: I don’t have information about urban and rural seniors on hand, although I believe that we do collect that information. I could come back to the committee with that.
Information about Indigenous communities and racialized communities, as you know, is not easily collected now. I can look at whether or not we have additional data in that space, but I don’t believe we do.
Senator Moodie: The next question I have is: What informs your decision to go with the criterion of age, across the board above 75, rather than with income for the OAS, not the supplement, to target people with low income? Is it the lack of information that drives how you arrive at your policy decision, and would it be helpful to collect this data?
Ms. Underwood: Certainly, I think it would be helpful to have more information and data. Obviously, as we disaggregate populations we can better look at how our policies impact specific populations.
We do look at the data. It’s not so much the lack of data but in the analysis of data that we see that seniors over 75 are more vulnerable. They do tend to have lower incomes, and they tend to have higher expenses as they age. It’s for these reasons that this population was chosen as a broad group of people who could benefit from wider government support.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Ms. Underwood, for being here today. I hate to keep digging away at this theme that so many of my colleagues have touched on, but here I go.
The OAS is currently tied to increases in the cost of living. That is automatically taken into account. Therefore, if we go back to the 10% increase, I’m still wondering how you get to that. Because if the cost of living is already automatically taken into account, then do you have data that shows that the cost of living for the over-75 group has gone up by 10%? That would be one place where presumably data would be taken into account.
I also wanted to ask about the clawback on OAS. I know a clawback starts at a certain level, but I can’t remember exactly where. Is it at $78,000 or $80,000 where the clawback is complete and people receive no OAS? I’m just saying this from memory. Is the clawback regime still the same as it was before? That would be the second part of my question with respect to the clawback.
As part of the analysis that you undertook to come to your decisions about increasing OAS and not GIS in the decision you’ve reached, did you take into account the other sources of income that people have? It’s true that some may have just OAS, but other seniors have CPP and they may have private income from various sources. I am wondering how that was taken into account in your analysis.
Ms. Underwood: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, indeed, the Old Age Security pension is increased four times a year by a cost-of-living measure for all seniors 65 years and older, so everyone who receives the Old Age Security. The 10% increase is not so much of an adjustment for cost of living, but it is recognizing the higher level of vulnerability for seniors as they age. A bit connected to that is your third question about other savings that seniors have. As seniors get older, they tend to outlive their savings, so that is an additional consideration in the analysis about 75 years of age and older.
You are correct that the OAS recovery clawback starts around $78,000 and goes up from there. Only about 6% of seniors actually have the OAS recovery clawback in place, and only about 2% actually have the full OAS clawback. That’s an important piece of information in here for you as well.
Senator Dasko: And that has not changed?
Ms. Underwood: No.
Senator Dasko: That was my question with regard to that. With regard to the other sources, I know you listed them, but did you take that into account in your analysis?
Ms. Underwood: Part of our analysis is to look at the retirement income system as a whole. We tend to focus in my department on the Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan supports for seniors, but we do that analysis in the context of the entire retirement income system.
Senator Dasko: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Ms. Underwood. I have a question, but I don’t know whether you can answer it. The general public often says that seniors are costly to society. You have heard this many times.
Have your actuaries done any calculations to determine, for every dollar invested in the Old Age Security pension, how much this can contribute to the Canadian economy, either directly or indirectly?
[English]
Ms. Underwood: I think it’s fair to say, Madam Chair, that seniors do contribute to the Canadian economy and are an important part of our economic fabric. The analysis of our actuaries is more on the cost of the program to seniors. Of course, people spend their money and that contributes to the Canadian economy, and that’s an important piece of keeping the economy rolling. The focus of their analysis is on the direct costs, I guess, to the government bottom line as opposed to the indirect cost of the money regenerating the economy.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: So you don’t have any figures on that at all?
Ms. Underwood: No.
Senator Mégie: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Ms. Underwood. I must say I feel for you because we are asking you questions that in all reality should be answered by your political masters. And I would really like to ask your political masters about the policy rationale, if there is one, behind this particular COVID-related measure. The thing about this COVID-related measure — and we’ve heard of other measures earlier in our hearings — is this one is a permanent measure, and it will come at some considerable cost to our fiscal capacity, not that I’m against more transfers to people in need. So I want to ask you about people in need.
What percentage of OAS recipients receive the GIS? Those are the people in need.
Ms. Underwood: My apologies, I really should have that number at my fingerprints and I do not, but I can provide that information afterwards. We definitely have that statistic, but I just don’t have it at my fingertips here.
Senator Omidvar: Is it fair to estimate — no, let’s not estimate. I just want to get at the depth of poverty in senior citizens, and it is best captured by the group with no other recourse than the GIS. That would have been a good number to have, but I hope I can get it from you later.
Ms. Underwood: You definitely can. I just don’t have it at my fingertips.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: We do have time for a few more questions. If you can allow me a question, I have a quick one following from Senator Omidvar’s. I’ve read in the documentation on this division that this measure is meant to lift about 60,700 seniors out of poverty, 65% of them being women. I’m trying to get a sense of what that represents in terms of how many need to be lifted out of poverty. Do you have that measure or can you get that for us? I think it resonates with a lot of the questions that we’ve had today.
Ms. Underwood: I have seen that number floating around, and I must say that we need to do more analysis on that number because I think there’s additional information that needs to be put into that analysis. I don’t have that number at my fingertips, and we are trying to do some more analysis on exactly what that number could be.
The Chair: That sounds good. If you get any sense of that, I’ve read that number a few times and would like to put it into context.
Ms. Underwood: It is sure that by increasing the OAS pension by 10% for those 75 years and older, we will be lifting many people over the poverty line because people are close to the poverty line. That will change the numbers.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Thank you again, Ms. Underwood. This is a tough afternoon for you, and I think it shows that we’re all trying to wrestle with how, as a society, we best help people who are vulnerable.
I have an observation on what’s been said. We’ve heard of actuarial scientists taking a look at statistics, we’re aware of some of the statistics, we’ve voiced concerns about those in need for the GIS and you’ve talked about doing further analysis with other information. Is some of that information provincial in nature? Have there been discussions with provinces? I’m well aware that some of the provincial pension plans — no, I’m going to word this differently.
I know there are a number of people who don’t qualify for their spouse’s provincial pensions if there is an age difference between the spouses. For instance, if the male — well, I’m going to be honest about this. In my case, my first husband was more than ten years older than me. When he died, I did not qualify — and do not qualify — for his pension, even though we’d been married for almost 35 years. I was young enough at that point that I could make amends to my own personal life, but that came as a real surprise. I get a tiny bit, and it went up by two cents a month three years ago, and it has been frozen to that. I had my grandchildren figure out when I could buy a cup of coffee, and I was told that I could get a small cup every three and a half years if it was a really small cup.
I don’t say this in jest. Many of us are okay, but when you take a look at the provincial pensions that some people are counting on and then they suddenly might not qualify for because of rules between the lines, I wonder how that increases the vulnerability of individuals who we’re trying to address with this 10% increase. My personal situation was just to give an example, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
Ms. Underwood: As you mentioned, the OAS is a part of the retirement income system. There are other parts to the retirement income system. Our focus is really about how that piece, the Old Age Security system and the CPP, are base supports within the larger retirement income system. The adjustments that we can make are in that part, as opposed to adjustments to other private pensions.
Senator Bovey: I appreciate that. You’re absolutely right, and that’s what it should be. But I do hope that, as you’re analyzing additional information, you are taking a look at the different rules and regulations across the provincial boundaries, because they’re not the same.
Senator Kutcher: I’m interested in this discussion around rising above the poverty line. What is that line? Because by my math — and I’m no mathematician, I just want to put that out there for everyone to know — and my back-of-an-envelope calculation is that a 10% increase on $613 is a little less than $1,000 a year. So we’re getting another $1,000 a year and that is going to lift so many Canadians over the poverty line? If I say I’m incredulous, it’s because I am. I would love to see that data.
Ms. Underwood: I’ll reiterate that it is for people who are receiving the maximum Old Age Security pension. It is $766. It would be a bit less than that for people who have been in the country for less than 40 years. The poverty line measure that we’re looking at is the market basket measure.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer. I know Ms. Underwood will send some data and statistics our way, so we might have a little bit more of the picture that we’re looking for when we come to observations on that division. Unless I see any other raised hands, we will suspend until we welcome our next witnesses. Before that, I do want to say thank you to Ms. Underwood.
[Translation]
We bombarded you with questions and we greatly appreciate how generously you answered them.
[English]
We are ready to continue with our next panel dealing with Division 33, which amends the Public Service Employment Act.
[Translation]
We’re joined today by several witnesses who will be talking about Division 33.
First, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we’re joined by Tolga Yalkin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Workplace Policies and Services Sector; and Selena Beattie, Executive Director, People Management and Community Engagement, Workplace Policies and Services Sector.
Also, from the Public Service Commission of Canada, we’re joined by Patrick Borbey, President; Gaveen Cadotte, Vice President, Policy and Communications; Robert McSheffrey, Director General, Personnel Psychology Centre; Sharon Messerschmidt, Director General, Audit; and Michael Morin, Director General, Policy and Strategic Directions.
We’ll start with Mr. Yalkin’s opening remarks. We’ll then hear from Mr. Borbey and proceed with the question period. The floor is yours, Mr. Yalkin.
Tolga Yalkin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Workplace Policies and Services Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Madam Chair, first, thank you for that warm introduction.
[English]
We are here today to talk about Division 33 of the budget implementation act, or BIA. I’m pleased to be here before the committee with my colleague, Executive Director Selena Beattie, whom you kindly introduced.
We’re here today to underscore and acknowledge that we cannot ignore the bias, the barriers and the discrimination that are an everyday reality for Black Canadians, Indigenous peoples and many others based on their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender, disability and many other grounds, which they experience on a daily basis. Even though the public service has long made diversity and inclusion a core value, and there has been progress, like other institutions, more remains to be done.
[Translation]
Last October, the Speech from the Throne announced an action plan to increase representation and leadership development in the public service. The Fall Economic Statement committed $12 million over three years to achieve these goals. The areas of focus will be to produce and publish better data; increase the diversity of senior management; ensure appropriate benchmarks; address systemic barriers; and promote education and awareness.
[English]
As part of these efforts, following consultations with employee diversity networks, bargaining agents and departmental senior officials for employment equity, diversity and inclusion, Budget 2021 announced the government’s intention to propose amendments to the Public Service Employment Act to reaffirm the importance of a diverse and inclusive workforce, as well as to strengthen the provisions to address potential biases and barriers in the staffing process.
[Translation]
The proposed amendments will address six points. The first, Madam Chair, adds an explicit commitment from the government to a public service that represents Canada’s diversity. While the current preamble acknowledges the value of diversity, the amendment would add an explicit commitment to an inclusive and diverse public service. The amendment would therefore affirm that diversity and inclusion aren’t afterthoughts, but are part of the purpose of the legislation and the goals of the hiring process.
[English]
The second of the six requires that the establishment or the review of qualification standards includes an evaluation of bias and barriers and that reasonable mitigation efforts be made.
Qualification standards set minimum requirements on things such as education, professional certification and official languages. The amendment would require an evaluation of biases and barriers for members of equity-seeking groups when qualification standards are designed or reviewed, coupled obviously by reasonable efforts to mitigate them. For example, we have heard that a requirement for a university degree can be a barrier for Indigenous people living in remote communities, as they may not have had access to the same level of education as other applicants. So an evaluation of a qualification standard that requires post-secondary education might consider the necessity of this requirement and also possible alternatives.
The third requires that the design and the manner of the application of assessment methods include an evaluation of biases and barriers, and that reasonable efforts be made to mitigate them. The Public Service Commission’s delegated hiring managers can evaluate candidates through a wide range of methods such as written tests, interviews and reference checks. The PSC’s recent audit of employment equity representation and recruitment, which I’m sure colleagues from the commission would be pleased to speak about in greater detail, found that employment equity, or EE, groups did not remain proportionally represented throughout the recruitment process.
By way of example, if I recall correctly, Indigenous candidates experienced less success in interviews; members of visible minorities, especially Black applicants, experienced less success in written tests; and all three employment equity groups — Indigenous people, members of visible minorities and persons with a disability — experienced less success at the stage of reference checks. This highlights the importance of this particular new proposed legislative requirement.
[Translation]
The fourth ensures that investigative and audit authorities include biases and barriers. While the legislation currently establishes audit and investigative powers, it doesn’t require that these powers include consideration of biases and barriers that place equity-seeking groups at a disadvantage. The amendments would obviously add these elements.
[English]
Five expands the preference for Canadian citizens in staffing processes open to the public to also include permanent residents. As it currently stands, the act gives preference to Canadian citizens in externally advertised processes, a very important entry point to the public service, representing, I believe, 45% of total advertised processes. Thus, if one qualified candidate is a citizen and another is not, the citizen must be appointed.
The amendment would expand the preference currently given to citizens to include permanent residents. From the data that our colleagues at the Public Service Commission have collected and analyzed, this would increase the pool of members of visible minorities available as candidates in these processes.
The sixth and last is to include a broad definition of equity-seeking groups. This means that evaluations of assessment methods, qualification standards and the audit and investigation authorities of which I spoke will concern impacts on groups that are disadvantaged on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, as outlined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, including race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability and other grounds as well.
[Translation]
These amendments, if approved, will be implemented in consultation with employee diversity networks, bargaining agents and senior officials responsible for employment equity, diversity and inclusion. This will support the overall vision of a public service that reflects the population it serves and that values and celebrates diversity and inclusion.
[English]
I’d like to emphasize that these legislative amendments are only part of a broader series of initiatives that the public service is pursuing to improve diversity and inclusion; and also that the work of eradicating bias and barriers in discrimination, which have taken root over generations, demands an ongoing and relentless effort.
I speak on behalf of my organization and my minister when I say we are committed to this effort and to using all available levers to improve the lived experience of public servants, to the end of ensuring they’re able to realize their full potential in contributing to the lives of their fellow citizens.
I thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair. I hope we have been able to provide the committee with information that helps it better understand the intention of these amendments.
[Translation]
We’ll be pleased to answer questions from members of this distinguished committee. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I believe we have opening remarks from you as well, Mr. Borbey.
[Translation]
Patrick Borbey, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today. I want to begin by acknowledging that I’m on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people. As you said earlier, I’m pleased to be joined by Gaveen Cadotte, Vice President, Policy and Communications; Michael Morin, Director General, Policy and Strategic Directions; Robert McSheffrey, Director General, Personnel Psychology Centre; and Sharon Messerschmidt, Director General, Audit.
[English]
The Public Service Commission is responsible for promoting and safeguarding a merit-based, representative and non-partisan public service that serves all Canadians. We report independently to Parliament on our mandate.
The PSC has a strong commitment towards diversity and inclusion in the public service. While we continue to make progress, it has been too slow. We must do more.
All candidates applying to jobs should have an equal opportunity to highlight their unique talents. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. The public service must go further in making our institutions free of systemic barriers and bias. For the PSC, that means looking at the appointment process.
As was mentioned by my colleague, in January we published the Audit of Employment Equity Representation in Recruitment in the federal public service. Our audit showed that employment equity groups did not remain proportionally represented throughout the recruitment process. In fact, the representation rate of Indigenous peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities decreased disproportionately at different stages of the recruitment process.
[Translation]
The representation rate of Black candidates decreased more than the rates of other visible minority groups.
Our recent studies on promotion rates have also demonstrated adverse outcomes for members of the same employment equity groups.
In response to these findings, the PSC is taking immediate action. We’ll soon be making unconscious bias training a requirement for all hiring managers. We’re working on ways to increase diversity on interview boards. We’re also enhancing our guidance on barrier-free recruitment methods. Lastly, we’re building expertise on assessment accommodations within departments.
[English]
The PSC is also advancing diversity and inclusion through other initiatives such as our targeted student and graduate recruitment programs, as well as the Federal Internship Program for Canadians with Disabilities. We will continue to conduct audits and research to identify barriers and appropriate solutions to mitigate them.
Our audit was a call for action, and we are pleased to see additional efforts to increase the representation of equity-seeking groups. We believe that the proposed amendments, along with other measures that the PSC, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer and other departments and agencies are taking will address barriers to diversity and help make staffing more inclusive. It will bring lasting change and lead to a public service that is more representative of the people it serves across the country.
[Translation]
For example, changing the hiring preference to include permanent residents will have an immediate positive impact on the hiring of qualified visible minorities. This will also give us access to a broader pool of talent. The change to our investigation authorities will provide a new avenue for people who feel that they have been denied a position because of racism or discrimination. In addition, the expansion of our audit powers will allow us to continue to provide evidence to ground new policies and programs in diversity hiring.
In developing and implementing these initiatives, we’ll work with departments, bargaining agents and equity-seeking groups. Collaboration with all stakeholders will be key to the success of these initiatives.
In conclusion, these amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, if adopted, will help address some of the biases and barriers that members of equity-seeking groups may face throughout the recruitment process, and throughout their careers.
[English]
In cooperation with our partners, we are looking forward to advancing these efforts, which will help foster a more diverse and inclusive public service.
I am pleased to answer your questions. Thank you, meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you for those opening remarks. We are ready to move to questions. We will begin with the deputy chair, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank you, Mr. Yalkin, Mr. Borbey and your colleagues for being with us. It’s encouraging to see the defined goals to erase biases and systemic barriers while trying to ensure employment equity, and I’m pleased to see you’re moving forward with new recruitment and appointment processes.
In getting to that, I have a couple of questions. In defining criteria of qualifications, can you talk about the work you’re doing to define equivalencies? You mentioned, for instance, university degrees. What might be some of the equivalencies in experience that you’re looking at?
I’m also interested in knowing what effects non-advertised appointments within the public service have had on marginalized Canadians. It’s easy to promote someone within the civil service and not go out to tender or to the marketplace. What kind of data do you have in terms of defining what the effect has been on marginalized Canadians?
Mr. Yalkin: Thank you for the question. For the second question, I’ll defer to our colleagues from the Public Service Commission to respond, but I can answer the first question.
It’s a very interesting question. Whenever Treasury Board Secretariat develops or reviews an existing qualification standard, as is perhaps obvious and clear from my remarks, they will look at the different requirements and ask: Is this something that could impose bias or barriers for a member of an equity-seeking group?
In circumstances where the answer is, yes, it would, the next question is: What could be the alternative combinations of experiences or other criteria which could be equivalent or tantamount to or could achieve the public objective and public purpose of having that particular requirement in there in the first place?
In previous circumstances where an alternative has been in existence, it has been worded as something like, this is the educational requirement or equivalent experience that leads to the necessary understanding of economic and social concepts, et cetera.
That provides a little bit of flexibility for alternatives to education that managers can then assess when they’re considering candidates for particular roles. The potential impact of that on diverse groups is perhaps obvious.
Senator Bovey: Mr. Borbey, I’d love your response to my other question, but I have a follow-up, if I may, for Mr. Yalkin.
Let’s take a look at Inuit and science and experimentation and the lived knowledge, the traditional knowledge of Inuit individuals on the land. That’s something that, if I were Inuit and wanting to apply for a job, I’m not sure I’d count that as an equivalency. I guess my challenge is how to find those words so that equivalency really opens the door instead of further shutting the door.
Mr. Yalkin: Again, I thank you for the great question, Madam Chair.
When it comes to qualification standards, they tend to be pretty general standards. Each position, obviously, has specific criteria that a manager will set out which they want met by the candidates who would put themselves forward for the position. As an example, that may include some of the examples that the honourable senator had been providing in her question. But when it comes to alternatives, like alternative combinations of experiences or knowledge which could perhaps help someone meet essential requirements of a position, there may be a number of different iterations or combinations of those experiences which could lead to the conclusion that a candidate meets the qualification standards; that is, the essential requirements of the position in question.
There are two ways, I guess, in which those examples could be helpful to an applicant. One, they could be viewed as a combination of alternative experiences and knowledge that lead to the view that a candidate meets an essential requirement and a qualification standard, or they could also be the criteria for a particular job, which I suspect is the case for some positions in the public service.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
Mr. Borbey, on the other question about the effect of non-advertised appointments on marginalized Canadians?
Mr. Borbey: Thank you for the question. This is an area that we are monitoring closely. There has been an increase in the use of non-advertised appointments. Again, this is a flexibility that’s available to managers; they make the choice.
I’ll give you an example. A non-advertised appointment includes the bridging of a student, somebody who has worked under a student program, who is bridged into a position when they graduate. There are also situations where people are appointed from pools that are established by other departments. There has already been a competitive process where they were deemed to be qualified, but those are identified as non-advertised appointments.
We have monitored the progression over the last three or four years. In the case of the employment equity groups, we have found that there has been a positive impact of non-advertised appointments for women and for visible minorities. For Indigenous people, it’s been neutral. However, non-advertised appointments are above labour market availability for Indigenous people. The only group where they are below labour market availability is for persons with disabilities. We have gone to 9% workforce availability in the most recent data. They are, as in other categories of employment, underperforming.
Again, the appointments have been stable over the last three or four years for that group as well. It has had a neutral or positive impact on employment equity groups.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for that.
Senator R. Black: To our witness Mr. Yalkin, I’m thinking about barriers here. We know many positions are advertised online. We also know that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the disparity of access to reliable internet in rural, remote and northern communities. How is the government and the federal public service eliminating this barrier and others to make their openings more accessible to those who may have limited access because of their resources?
Mr. Yalkin: Thank you for the question. Madam Chair, I apologize to the committee. I’m not sure I’m best placed to answer that question. I do suspect, however — not to put our colleagues on the spot — that our colleagues from the Public Service Commission may be able to provide greater insight as to how candidates apply for certain positions and are considered for them and the nature of the online platform. I do apologize; I’m not well placed to answer that question.
Senator R. Black: Thank you. Let’s send that over to our other witness, Mr. Borbey.
Mr. Borbey: Yes. Thank you. All positions that are advertised must be advertised on our system called the Public Service Resourcing System or commonly known as GC Jobs. People see it, and that’s available through all kinds of different platforms.
We recognize that in remote and isolated communities it’s more difficult. We know that departments, for example, in the North continue to advertise using the traditional media — newspapers, regional newspapers — to be able to make sure they reach those communities. But we do recognize that that is a barrier. That’s something that we need to address. Hopefully, with continued improvements in broadband access, all Canadians will have equal access to those advertisements.
Senator R. Black: Thank you. Your critical words there are improvement to the rural broadband.
I have a question specifically for you as well. Does your department utilize gender-based analysis when reviewing federal public service appointments? And if so, please explain further and provide an example.
Mr. Borbey: We use gender-based analysis in reviewing our programs, initiatives, policies and activities but not with respect to individual appointments. Again, I would remind you that appointments are actually made by departments under our delegated model. Clearly, departments have the responsibility under the employment equity legislation to monitor their performance and representation at all levels, including gender. If there are differences, including at the occupational group and subgroup level, they have to take measures to improve representation.
For example, at the Public Service Commission, we monitor very closely our EC category because we’ve had an underrepresentation of women. We have taken measures as a result of this underrepresentation to bridge that gap, and we were able to do so. Again, it does take some time, a couple of years, to balance things out, but we certainly take that very seriously.
Senator R. Black: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: My question concerns an issue that hasn’t been discussed so far in terms of this division.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, tabled a report in January 2021 entitled Linguistic (in)security at work — Exploratory survey on official languages among federal government employees in Canada. The report focuses on Canadian regions that are designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes in the federal public service. The report shows that many employees who work in designated regions experience linguistic insecurity.
How do the measures proposed in this division affect the ability of federal government employees to communicate in the official language of their choice?
Mr. Yalkin: Thank you for the question. In terms of the division concerned, the proposed amendments to the legislation don’t specifically focus on improving the state of linguistic insecurity in designated bilingual regions. However, I can still speak to that. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is focusing on this issue because creating an environment conducive to the use of both official languages could better meet the objectives of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Linguistic insecurity is a big focus of ours, in fact, and there are many things that we have been collaborating on with the commissioner and other partners.
For example, there currently exists an interdepartmental working group on linguistic insecurity that is developing a series of tools and supports that departments can use to try to overcome some of the barriers that exist, including the idea of developing a language passport in a sense that public servants would use to demonstrate their commitment towards their second language. There have also been a series of events.
[Translation]
The Official Languages Best Practices Forum, for example, focused on linguistic insecurity. The discussions among various panels and the talks addressed this issue in detail. The discussions are ongoing.
The president of the Treasury Board is very concerned about this issue. This topic is also a key part of the vision for the modernization of the government outlined by Ms. Joly. Thank you for the question.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have one more question.
The Chair: Senator Forest-Niesing, Mr. Borbey wanted to comment on this.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Borbey: You may want to know that, at the Public Service Commission of Canada, we work hard to create pools of bilingual candidates across the country. We’re always surprised to see the availability of bilingual candidates across the country, including very strong representation from the equity groups. Statistics show that, last year, 30% of Indigenous external candidates and 41% of people with disabilities self-identified as bilingual. In terms of visible minority groups and women, 41% and 43% of candidates, respectively, self-identified as bilingual.
This shows that there are pools of available qualified candidates across the country. This is especially important if the government wants to improve the ability to serve the public in the regions and the ability to properly protect the rights of employees to work and receive supervision in their own language, regardless of their location in Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for the additional information. You still have time, Senator Forest-Niesing.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have a very brief sub-question. Thank you for the information provided on this issue.
Specifically, with respect to the division that we’re discussing today, I gather that you’re considering expanding the definition of equity-seeking groups. I want to know whether you consider official language minority communities part of the equity-seeking groups. Are they part of that definition?
Mr. Yalkin: The answer is no, because the definition comes from the Canadian Human Rights Act and the amendments refer to that definition. This definition is the one used, along with all the existing protections for public servants set out in the Official Languages Act.
I imagine that the committee may have already conducted a study on this. However, the vision document released by the government contains several administrative proposals, such as raising the bilingualism levels for supervisors so that French-speaking or English-speaking employees in bilingual regions are supervised by someone with the skills needed to supervise people in their first language. Many proposals seek to promote official language acquisition throughout the public service.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: I want to thank the witnesses. Mr. Borbey, I heard your explanation for Senator Forest-Niesing regarding certain percentages of people who self-identify as bilingual.
This identification is part of the different elements of diversity. On that note, since the purpose of Division 33 is to reflect the diversity of the Canadian population within the public service, have you ever measured the other elements of diversity? Do you have any figures or percentages that indicate that the Canadian population has a certain number or percentage of people in the different elements of diversity? Do you have any figures?
Mr. Borbey: We certainly have figures. Mr. Yalkin could speak to that in terms of the representation of equity groups, the groups officially represented by the four groups. We also have more and more data on the subgroups.
We’ve heard a great deal lately about the need for disaggregated data for Black citizens, candidates and employees. The commission has made efforts to improve its knowledge and find out that progress in some categories may mask issues for a certain subgroup. This is an area of focus.
In terms of official language minority groups, we’re also closely monitoring employment growth in these communities. We’ve set targets for the percentage of people hired from these communities, whether they’re anglophones in Quebec or francophones outside Quebec.
I’m pleased to report that our results exceed these targets in terms of annual recruitment. This is normal, to some extent, because these communities don’t have bilingualism issues. Most, if not all, the members of these communities have second language skills or are already bilingual. These are important pools for the public service, particularly for public service renewal, given the anticipated retirements and the need to increase our capacity in both official languages.
Senator Mégie: I’m pleased to hear you say that you’re monitoring growth. I was also going to ask you whether you monitor growth on a regular basis until you reach your targets. Do you rely on individuals’ self-identification?
Mr. Borbey: Yes. It’s a very important issue because we know that there’s a stigma and some reluctance to self-identify. We have a self-identification process for candidates applying for jobs in the public service. When they’re hired, the process is overseen by our colleagues at the Treasury Board Secretariat. An annual update ensures that employees can self-identify as part of groups and subgroups.
Of course, we use this information to monitor growth when we conduct studies. For example, we couldn’t conduct the study or the audit that I referred to earlier if we didn’t have the information to properly understand the development of the employment processes of equity groups.
Senator Mégie: Perfect. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I have a series of questions, and I’d be happy to go on the second round if my time expires. My first question is to Mr. Yalkin, and it’s about the amendment which would provide permanent residents the same standing as Canadian citizens in externally advertised positions. I’m glad that is happening because that was a significant barrier. However, there is another barrier, and it’s pretty significant. It is the requirement for meeting a certain standard of official bilingualism, and by that I’m really referring to fluency in French.
I understand that there are certain positions in the public service in certain regions that waive the requirement for a certain level of fluency so that, in fact, permanent residents — visible minorities — are able to apply. Is that still the case or not?
Mr. Yalkin: Thank you for the question. Whenever there is a position in the public service, the decision about whether or not and the extent to which the individual occupying that position needs to be bilingual is determined — required, in fact, by the Official Languages Act, section 91 — objectively by reference to the duties associated with that position. There is no arbitrary decision as to whether or not a position needs to be bilingual or not. Whenever a position is created, any requirement — and we have a qualification standard that defines A, B and C for reading, writing and oral — needs to be determined objectively by reference to the duties of that particular position.
The committee may be interested to know as well that approximately 43% of the positions in the public service currently have a bilingual profile, meaning they require some level of competence in both official languages.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. That was very useful information.
I think about 10 years ago — I could be wrong — the Government of Canada, and in particular IRCC, recognized the particular barriers that recent immigrants face to gaining employment, particularly in the federal public service. They launched a paid internship program, and it spread across departments. Does that program still exist, or has it been relegated to the history books?
Mr. Yalkin: Forgive me, but I don’t have the answer to that question. I’m not familiar with the program, but we would be happy to follow up and see what we can find for you, senator.
Mr. Borbey: I can answer that, if you want.
Senator Omidvar: Please.
Mr. Borbey: IRCC does run a program for the newly arrived in Canada. It’s called the FIN Program, and it provides up to four-month internship opportunities. Yes, it is still active. In fact we’re hoping that, as a result of the change to the preference for Canadian citizens to include permanent residents, the program might be able to be expanded.
Senator Omidvar: Well, that would be excellent news. Can you also tell me how many of the interns are then actually successful in gaining permanent employment with the federal public service, or any employment with the federal public service?
Mr. Borbey: I don’t have that information. I know IRCC does capture that information, so we can follow up and get that information for you after the meeting.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I would appreciate that.
I want to know — maybe this is for both or all witnesses here — whether the federal public service uses technology and digital platforms to deal with issues of bias. There are digital platforms that can be applied to all your processes, and they will tell you through some formula — and I’m a total techno-twit, I should admit — and are able to spit out the information. There are other platforms that help you deal with name-based biases, which we know are still prevalent as part of our hiring processes. Unfortunately, bias still exists. Anonymizing résumés helps you get over one part of the bias. I know some of these platforms are being used by the Canadian Armed Forces, and I believe they’re having specific success in screening, interviewing and hiring candidates who are disabled. I know that IRCC uses other platforms. I’ve also heard that the Treasury Board uses these platforms. Is there an effort to evaluate some of these platforms and embed them into the machinery of government in the public service of Canada?
Mr. Borbey: Maybe I can comment on that since we do have some experience with this. First of all, I would mention that we did do a research project on the use of anonymized recruitment. It was a pilot project we conducted about three years ago. We would be happy to share the report from that project. At the end of the day, it was inconclusive as to whether anonymizing the information did lead to better outcomes particularly for visible minorities. In fact, it was a very cumbersome approach and process. I called them the “Swiss cheese résumés,” where so much of the information had to be blacked out that it was hard for managers to use.
In terms of automated systems, we have worked with one department in testing whether artificial intelligence in screening might be an effective tool and particularly in testing it with respect to bias. If there is one thing that’s worse than human bias, it’s machine bias because that’s much harder to fix. We did do an experiment; we worked with this department. At the end of the day, it was deemed that the screening process is too complex to apply machine learning techniques, because machine learning — artificial intelligence — is good at yes-or-no decisions and a little bit less so when there are a lot of different factors that need to be evaluated.
We are continuing to monitor other experiments in the use of artificial intelligence, but, again, we’re concerned that we make sure that we don’t introduce machine bias while we’re trying to eliminate human bias.
Senator Omidvar: Of course. However, I would suggest that not using them at all is a lost opportunity. We do know that many of the biggest corporations in Canada are now embracing these platforms to help them deal with their diversity problem, so I’m pretty sure there is some good stuff that you can learn from them. Hopefully, that is a matter for another day.
Madam Chair, do I have one more question?
The Chair: I’ll put you on the second round so everyone has time for a question.
Senator Moodie: I’m going to direct my question to Mr. Borbey, please — actually, to both of you if you don’t mind, but primarily to Mr. Borbey.
For many years, Black public servants have identified a number of changes they believe needed to happen within the public service to promote diversity. This includes things like effective training, mentorship and changes to the staffing process. In fact, I’d say that it has come to a head. So slowly has the public service been able to adjust and make meaningful change that, in fact, there is currently a lawsuit mounting against the federal government with more than 600 Black former public servants who are alleging that they faced discrimination in the workplace. So despite the recognition that you both so amply state that the public service has a lot of room for improvement, clearly the wheels of change have been very slow.
With this new legislation, what is your expectation? How quickly would public servants expect to see changes rolled out in their workplaces? In fact, it has been very slow to date, so what’s new and what’s different now?
Mr. Borbey: Maybe I can answer by saying the changes in legislation are going to help. I’ve tried to highlight where I think it will lead to some improvements. Some of it will take some time. For example, we have to work on reviewing all of the different assessment tools. That’s going to take some time to be able to identify bias-free tools that we can deploy to departments to use. But we’re going to be working on this in earnest to get it done as quickly as possible.
We have to look at this in the context of a broader set of initiatives. That’s why I mentioned earlier, in terms of responding to the audit observations, we are already acting. We are rolling out mandatory training on unconscious bias. We are going to be moving toward diverse selection boards. We have already issued new directions and guidance to departments about the use of inclusive merit criteria and about how to properly target subgroups in staffing actions where there is a need to improve representation. We are working with organizations like FBEC to see what other improvements we can make to accelerate the change that you’re talking about.
Mr. Yalkin: If I may add, Madam Chair, it’s an excellent question. To pick up on a couple of items that the senator thoughtfully mentioned and on Mr. Borbey’s comments, these foundational changes to the staffing process are but part of a broader co-developed drive to make sure we’re not only improving the staffing process, but we’re also tackling things like racism and discrimination in other ways. There are three good examples of that I would like to offer the committee.
One is our Executive Leadership Development Program, which effectively is a program that the public service has to groom aspiring directors. That program now has made a commitment to reserve 50% of the places in it to the three employment equity groups: persons with a disability, Indigenous people and members of a visible minority. It was already well represented for women. That’s one commitment that has been made.
A second important development is a program called Mentorship Plus, which is basically a program that blends mentorship and sponsorship, so active advocacy on behalf of what are termed protégés. It takes protégés from diverse groups, like persons with a disability and racialized individuals, and pairs them with an executive, and that executive is their sponsor and actively advocates for them at management tables and takes an active interest in their work. There’s a lot of support we’ve developed around that. There are 9 departments which have rolled it out and over 30 departments that will be rolling it out in the coming weeks and months.
The final thing I’ll mention is a longer-term project which was committed to in the budget. It was a management development program. That management development program would be focused specifically on members of equity-seeking groups, taking aspiring middle-level managers and providing them with all of the tools and opportunities they need, the training and the exposure to be able to accelerate their career trajectory in the public service.
Those are some very important and meaningful initiatives. They are not legislation, obviously, but they are incredibly important tools in our toolkit for addressing some of the historical issues that the senator had raised.
Senator Moodie: I’m just wondering if you can shed some light on what you see as the timeline for this diverse selection committee process that you refer to, Mr. Borbey. When will that be implemented? Because that seems to be one of the potentially almost immediate changes that you could make that would make a change in who is filtering the candidate. If your public service leadership is primarily comprised of individuals who are not of a diverse group or any of these equity groups, then their filters will pass on to whom they select. Can you give me a sense of when you will implement these groups?
Mr. Borbey: We’re working on it right now. We’re consulting with the equity-seeking groups. We’re going to make sure we roll this out in a way that will work for everyone. I’m a little bit concerned that we don’t end up in a situation where the same people are always being asked to be on selection boards just because they’re Black or just because they’re the only person with a disability in a particular organization.
One of the things that I’m interested in, for example, is whether we could create rosters of volunteer senior executives from employment equity groups who then could be made available to other departments so it’s not always the same person that’s being asked. Those are some of the issues we want to make sure we work out before we deploy this more broadly.
We’re also looking at the experience of other jurisdictions elsewhere in the world that have put in place diverse boards or a requirement for diverse boards to see what we can learn from their experience.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for being here. We applaud your initiatives that aim to create more diverse workplaces. However, as a recent piece in the Harvard Business Review pointed out, “Diversity Doesn’t Stick Without Inclusion.” In order to know if the workplace is becoming more inclusive, you need to measure that.
There are three parts to the question. How are you going to measure the effectiveness of the interventions you’re putting in on inclusion? Second, are you using organizational network analysis as one of the evaluation tools to measure inclusion? Third, what baseline measures of inclusion have you conducted so far and what is your research plan going forward?
Mr. Yalkin: Madam Chair, I would be happy to provide a response to that question. It’s a great point.
We know that we need to make sure we are increasing the diversity of our organizations and that folks can succeed in them, and that the organizations are substantively and significantly inclusive in terms of making those individuals feel part of the organization. Just as an aside, it’s inherent in some of the initiatives I already mentioned, such as Mentorship Plus, and it’s also inherent in engagements we’ve gone through with, for example, employment equity networks, bargaining agents and others.
The key tool for us to understand in the public service is whether inclusion is improving or not improving; are we making progress? Are all of the many interventions we are pursuing having an impact?
It’s really the Public Service Employee Survey. It has questions which shed light on the issue of inclusion. The most recent results of that survey that were conducted over the last few months should be released fairly shortly, if not already. We would be happy to share those results when made public with members of the committee as illustrative of how the public service is making progress toward inclusion.
The Treasury Board Secretariat administers something called a Management Accountability Framework, otherwise known as MAF. MAF also does have questions, often on inclusion. One of those questions in the most recent round of MAF was on the existence of and the practice around diverse selection boards. That’s another example of our approach to trying to assess inclusion.
Mr. Borbey: We also have other ways that we can measure progress, in addition, of course, to using our audit tools and studies or updating on an annual basis studies such as promotion rate studies. However, when it comes to inclusion, I could mention that every two years we do a survey of all public service employees with respect to their views on staffing and on the non-partisan nature of the public service. We’re just completing that survey right now and we’ve added some questions to get a better understanding of how members of employment equity groups and subgroups feel about the staffing system, the fairness, transparency and merit.
Hopefully, again, combining that with the examples that Mr. Yalkin gave of other instruments, we can combine those to get a better snapshot of progress.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. I’m just wondering about the use of organizational network analysis. Surveys are helpful and they’re useful. I’m delighted to hear that you’re putting those into place, but what about organizational network analysis, which, to my understanding, is a gold standard way of doing this?
Mr. Yalkin: I must apologize and confess my ignorance about organizational network analysis. I’m not familiar with it, but I definitely am grateful for the flag and will certainly follow up on it.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Senator Dasko: These are certainly worthwhile initiatives.
I would like clarification on the issue of terminology. We’re talking about equity-seeking groups, but many of us are familiar with the concept of employment equity and the targets that employment equity either includes or implies. Could you clarify that? Are these changes part of an employment equity program? Are they under another umbrella? Could you sort out the terminology for me and tell me where this fits with those other pieces?
I haven’t heard the term “employment equity” used a lot today because we’re talking about processes that have to do with equity-seeking groups, qualifications and how to review applicants for jobs and so on. If someone could sort that out for me, that will be my question. Thank you.
Mr. Yalkin: Thank you for the excellent question. The Employment Equity Act sets out, as we’ve touched on today, four employment equity groups: women, Indigenous people, persons with a disability and members of a visible minority.
When we came to the process of considering the amendments we’ve been discussing today, we did ask ourselves about the appropriate groups that should derive benefit from some of the protections that we have been discussing here today. The advice provided was that rather than focus on the four employment equity groups, it would be perhaps better to extend these protections to a broader range of individuals to, in effect, be more inclusive. And also, as senators may be aware, the Employment Equity Act is intended to undergo a thorough review in which the very groups that it outlines may be reconsidered.
As a consequence of that — our desire to be more inclusive of, for example, LGBTQ2+ individuals and also avoid the thornier issues around the protections that could or could not be accorded to subgroups within the Employment Equity Act — we chose to coin a new term, “equity-seeking groups,” which derives its definition from the bases of discrimination that are found in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I’d be happy to repeat those again, but I’m sure senators are familiar with them.
Senator Dasko: That’s very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I should convey to our witnesses that the depth of our questions comes from a desire to set the bar really high for the federal public service because you are the standard that others will follow, and that’s our aspiration here.
I want to get back to hiring panels and talk about unconscious bias. My reading of unconscious bias is that everyone has it, and everyone is more likely to favour the group of people who they are most like, as opposed to unconsciously expressing their bias against people. Have you taken that into account?
I wonder if I haven’t made myself completely clear. Unconscious bias leads to screening in people who are like you, which is why in my past I have hired short women. Have you taken all of this into account as you’ve launched your unconscious bias training? And I’m happy to hear it is mandatory. It’s voluntary in the Senate.
Michael Morin, Director General, Policy and Strategic Directions, Public Service Commission of Canada: We have received a lot of feedback from different groups about the need to have unconscious bias training in staffing, and we’ve been working in close collaboration with the Canada School of Public Service in the development of the course. As you mentioned, we want to highlight the common biases, bring them to light and give examples so that people reflect on them when they are undergoing a staffing process. This will be built in as mandatory training, but also reinforced in all of our guidance and advice that we provide to departments.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
[Translation]
Thank you for joining us today and for generously answering our questions. If you have anything to add or if you think of anything later, you can let us know in writing in the next few days.
We’ll proceed with the last two panels for this busy day.
Without further ado, I want to introduce the witnesses from the first panel. They will be speaking about Division 32. You’ll recall that this division amends the Old Age Security Act and seeks to increase the Old Age Security pension payable to people aged 75 and over by 10%. From the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, we’re joined by Bill VanGorder, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer. From the Réseau FADOQ, we’re joined by Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, President.
We’ll take a few minutes to hear your opening remarks. Mr. VanGorder, the floor is yours.
[English]
Bill VanGorder, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer, Canadian Association of Retired Persons: Thank you very much. Greetings from sunny Halifax today where I’m located. I want to thank you all for this opportunity to have C.A.R.P. present our concerns on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of older Canadian members of C.A.R.P.
As you may not know, C.A.R.P. is a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan organization with 325,000 members in every province and territory in Canada. C.A.R.P. members are mostly retired, well-educated, middle- and upper-income seniors, who work with C.A.R.P. to advocate for the interests of older Canadians of all economic and social levels.
COVID-19 has undermined the fundamental principles of aging well and happily. What we’ve heard from a large number of our members, apart from the terrible human consequences, is that seniors have been negatively impacted by the increased cost of living — things like grocery premiums, delivery fees, increases in prescription medication fees, and a lack of free community services such as laundry services or meals at community centres which have closed down because of physical distancing restrictions.
In a survey pre-COVID, the majority of our members had already expressed they were very concerned about outliving their savings. With the recent economic impacts of COVID-19, these fears have never been more real.
Our presentation today, of course, revolves around the proposed addition to the Old Age Security Act to increase the pensions payable to individuals aged 75 and over by 10% and the one-time payment of $500 to those 75 and over.
The statistics are clear. Canadians are living longer than ever before. At age 65, there’s a 72% chance that one half of a couple will live to the age of 85, a 45% chance that one of them will live to 90 and even a 10% chance that one will live to 100. This unprecedented longevity impacts programs like the OAS. Moreover, retirement insecurity runs high among seniors. We see historically low interest rates and some high investment costs all around the world.
Unlike other countries, Canada does not mandate that employers provide pensions for their employees. This means that the OAS is critical to keeping seniors out of poverty.
Now, C.A.R.P. can’t disagree with the wisdom of a 10% increase in the OAS, but I’m disappointed to tell you that older Canadians have the perception that the federal government has done very little to directly assist them during the COVID pandemic. They’ve seen monetary support going to workers, businesses and institutions, but very little to seniors.
In all fairness, it can be pointed out that older Canadians have had programs that are aimed at seniors, but in their view all they’ve received directly is $300 last June — $200 more if they were really poor — and that was it. That is the perception.
We’ve had extremely strong feedback from our members and in our surveys that older Canadians are not happy with the financial support they have or are being promised by the federal government.
The realization by Canadians between the ages of 65 and 75 that they’re not being included in the 10% OAS increase has created huge concern and frustration. They feel, and, in fact, they are being left out. They question why there wasn’t simply a 10% increase extended to everyone eligible starting at the age of 65. They also question the $500 payment in August, when it would have been much more valuable for them to have the 10% be available to everyone over 65 immediately instead of waiting until 2022.
Thank you for this opportunity today to present the concerns of 325,000 Canadians across the country who are concerned about their financial security.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now hear from Ms. Tassé-Goodman before we begin the question and answer period.
Ms. Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, President, Réseau FADOQ: Honourable senators, my name is Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, and I am the President of Réseau FADOQ. I would like to begin by thanking the committee members for this invitation.
Réseau FADOQ is a seniors network with more than 550,000 members. Every political representation we make is intended to help improve seniors’ quality of life.
In recent years, the federal government has taken positive steps concerning seniors.
It was essential to maintain the eligibility age for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement at 65. Automatic enrolment in the Guaranteed Income Supplement of those eligible for that program was necessary.
The increase of the amounts provided through the Guaranteed Income Supplement was also well received, just as the enhancement to the income exemption for the Guaranteed Income Supplement is appreciated by many experienced low-income workers.
Those are actions our organization applauded in a timely fashion.
However, our concern today is the federal government’s decision to increase the Old Age Security pension by 10% for people aged 75 and over only.
Although the Prime Minister has remained true to his 2019 commitment, the measures announced in the latest federal budget have been hard on thousands of seniors aged 65 to 74.
Our organization recommends that the 10% increase of Old Age Security payments be applied to all individuals eligible for that pension in order to avoid creating two classes of seniors.
It is clear to Réseau FADOQ that financial insecurity has no age.
Many 65-year-olds are struggling just as much to make ends meet as those aged 75.
Currently, someone who is receiving only the Old Age Security benefit and the maximum amount through the Guaranteed Income Supplement has an annual income of $18,505. The annual income of someone in that situation is below Canada’s official poverty line.
Under the Poverty Reduction Act, adopted in 2019, the Canadian government decided to keep the market basket measure as Canada’s official poverty line.
For 2021, the market basket measure thresholds fluctuate between $19,564 and $21,132 for a person living alone, depending on where they are. It is unacceptable for a person receiving only the Old Age Security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement not to meet those thresholds.
We remind you that the market basket measure is intended to establish the cost of a bare subsistence basket, which makes it possible to meet basic needs. People with an income equal to those thresholds are not living; they are surviving.
Moreover, certain elements that are essential to the well-being of households are not included in the calculation of the market basket measure.
That is the case for certain out-of-pocket health care expenditures, such as dental care, eye care and the purchase of medication. We remind you that aging individuals have ongoing expenses that can be higher than those of other age groups when it comes to, among other things, the purchase of medication and add-on equipment.
For Réseau FADOQ, it is clear that the money provided through Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement must at the very least help cover basic care included in the market basket measure.
A starting point for the federal government is to commit to increasing by 10% the benefits provided through Old Age Security to all seniors eligible for the program, as soon as they turn 65.
The proposed increase must be accessible to everyone, with no age-based discrimination.
Réseau FADOQ feels that the federal government must also increase by $50 the payment provided through the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
By combining those two enhancements, a senior who is receiving only the Old Age Security benefit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement will have an annual income slightly above the lower range of the thresholds set by the market basket measure.
In other words, this is the bare minimum seniors in Quebec and in Canada should expect from their government.
I want to thank the committee members for having us.
The Chair: Thank you. We have questions for you, starting with the committee’s deputy chair, Senator Bovey.
[English]
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank both our witnesses. You were clear and succinct. I’m very glad to know your positions. As you say, people are pleased with the positive steps made in the last little while, but the truth is, as was said at the hearings at the House of Commons committee, it’s perhaps too little, too late — or not soon enough if we’re talking about the 65-plus group instead of the 75-plus one.
I want your thoughts on the impact of COVID on seniors. I think we all know people who have become reclusive shut-ins over the last 14 months because of their fear of going out. Mr. VanGorder, as you said, the community centres are no longer able to give them their meals. These people are often living without family in their communities. They can’t get out. Many aren’t able to drive anymore. If they’re not in a community where volunteers can deliver their prescriptions, they’re doubly isolated.
I want to know both of your thoughts about whether the government should have used the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS, as a tool for determining what payments should be made as opposed to this $500 on the OAS and then the 10% for those over 75. Would that have been a better guide for coming to a decision?
My other question is: Were your organizations consulted as these decisions and policies were being discussed and implemented?
Mr. VanGorder: First of all, isolation has been a huge issue, and we’ve concentrated, with good reason, on the terrible problems that have happened in long-term care homes. However, 90% to 95% of our older Canadians across the country are still living in their own homes and their own communities. They have been even more affected in some ways — certainly, by isolation — not only because they’ve been forced to stay in their own homes, but the people who were giving them support — younger family members, neighbours, and others in the community — have not been able to come to them or have not felt as comfortable being with them. One of the issues we have, especially in rural areas, is even the lack of communications, such as high-speed internet — some of the things the rest of us have used, as we are today, to get over these issues — that have not been available to them.
We believe at C.A.R.P. and our members are telling us that isolation is not only a problem, but it will continue to be a problem. Long after the hopeful end of this COVID episode, we’re going to deal with the issues — especially the mental health issues — caused by isolation. One of the things that C.A.R.P. is doing is trying to ramp up the services available to seniors on a mental health basis.
A quick answer to your other question with regard to other ways of dealing with the financial issue: we were not consulted. We did, of course, as we always do, make many submissions to the government on what we thought should happen, both in the budget and in programs, and we reacted to them afterwards. We weren’t consulted in this. We were somewhat surprised when the platform came out with the 75-plus piece in it, but we realize that these financial issues are complicated. You have scores of staff who are experts at figuring out the most economical way. We know that directed support is often not as economically feasible as more general support, and money can come back to the government through taxes on that basis.
What we’re giving you today is a reaction of those 65- to 74-year-old people who don’t know why they were ignored and left out. And, as I pointed out in my original statement, they feel they’ve been left out the whole time. They were given a bit of money last June, and now this is promised and that is all they’ve seen they’ve gotten in terms of government support.
The Chair: Ms. Tassé-Goodman, do you want to comment on that, and were you consulted?
[Translation]
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: Yes, we were consulted and we submitted a number of briefs, including to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We had numerous opportunities to meet with the Minister of Seniors, Ms. Schulte, and with her parliamentary secretary. We also met with the President of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. We had many opportunities to explain seniors’ needs in the community.
That said, isolation has placed a significant strain on seniors, both in terms of cognitive losses and physical health. Some seniors are still isolated because access to visits is limited. Many seniors have told us that they have not seen their children for nearly a year or a year. It has been pretty difficult for them, but there are clearly a number of costs associated with the pandemic, such as medication and grocery deliveries. They have not had access to their family circle and their social circles.
Today, as our colleague from CARP was saying, seniors’ financial fragility does exist before the age of 65. We cannot kid ourselves. The income provided through Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement is below the market basket measure, which is Canada’s poverty line.
During consultations, we also asked that the Guaranteed Income Supplement be increased by $50 a month, as seniors are struggling to make ends meet once they pay their rent and buy their medication. They have suffered during the pandemic, and the repercussions are still being felt.
[English]
Senator R. Black: Mr. VanGorder, thanks very much for acknowledging that those in rural and remote and northern areas have additional issues and concerns. As someone who looks out for rural, I’m appreciative of your comments there, so thanks.
In your opinion, does the 10% increase to the Old Age Security pension adequately support seniors in today’s economy? I know you’ve already said it’s unfair to limit it to 75 and up, but does it adequately support seniors in today’s economy?
Mr. VanGorder: Thank you, senator. No, it doesn’t. We’ve been behind in this area for years and need at some point to catch up. As my colleague from FADOQ said, we’re just keeping people at an amount of money a year, with that evil name of the poverty line, which is not a livable amount. It’s artificial and does not at all represent what it really costs people to live an adequate life these days. We still have a long way to go.
Senator R. Black: Ms. Tassé-Goodman, as president of the largest seniors’ organization in Canada, you acknowledge seniors have faced increased challenges over the course of this pandemic and maybe even assumed additional costs during the time to help ensure their safety.
Can you highlight for us some major costs? I know you mentioned dentists, but are there other major costs incurred by your membership during these past 14 to 16 months, and will the one-time payment of $500 in the summer and the addition of the 10% increase next summer help address this financial strain?
[Translation]
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: Thank you, Senator Black. I would tell you that financial insecurity does not discriminate based on age; that much is clear. We are being told that some seniors who receive Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, for a total of $18,505 a year, count their medication at the end of the month. Some decide to skip a day, as they are struggling to pay their grocery bills.
This is unfair, and we are receiving hundreds of messages from seniors who do not understand why Mr. Trudeau’s federal government is drawing the line at the 10% increase for those aged 75, in addition to the 10% increase. We are not against the 10% increase in benefits for those aged 75 and over, but that increase should also be provided to individuals aged 65 and over. This is Réseau FADOQ’s position.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer, Ms. Tassé-Goodman. This is a major concern for me, as two days ago, someone wrote me at the office to tell me that, through this part of the budget, Mr. Trudeau is creating two classes of seniors, and that person was part of the 65-to-74 age group. You are contributing a great deal to this discussion on whether costs are lower for that age group. We will continue with our questions.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I thank the two witnesses for joining us and for presenting their positions so clearly.
My first question is for Ms. Tassé-Goodman. In an article published in La Presse, you expressed an opinion in the wake of the budget announcement, more specifically as it relates to the anger and lack of understanding among people you represent over the two classes of seniors this measure creates.
In a response published today — which I assume you have seen — Minister Schulte attempted to answer you by referring to the three main factors: the cost of life has increased — and I struggle to see how that applies more specifically to people aged 75 and over; added to that is the increasing spending in health care owing to disease and disability for that category of individuals aged 75 and over; finally, older couples risk losing one of the partners, which could lead to financial difficulties.
Are you satisfied with the response? Do you think other factors should have been taken into account?
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: Thank you for your question. It is interesting.
Here is the reality: stress among seniors, be they 65 years old or 75 years old, is a situation that is all too real. Many more women are at risk of ending up alone after the age of 60 or 65. Many of them end up alone, and some raised their children alone and stayed at home. They have no pension income or they entered the labour market a bit late in life.
As a result, some of them have no pension fund at all. Some stayed home to raise their children and others are caregivers today and are living without an income while helping their aging parents. Those individuals — both men and women provide that support — are becoming poor despite all this. Let’s think of parking when we go to centres to visit our parents; there is food and gas to consider, and many costs are added to that service.
I would even add that a senior reminded me that, when he would get to the checkout line at the supermarket to pay for his groceries, with his annual income of $18,505, he would put his hands in his pockets and sometimes had to remove items from his grocery basket. It is unacceptable to hear things like that because these are also basic products.
The same goes for the purchase of glasses. Some seniors receive Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but they cannot afford a visit to an optometrist to purchase prescription glasses. They rather decide to buy glasses at the pharmacy, which are probably not adapted to their vision.
Other seniors have issues with their feet, have trouble walking, have calluses and all sorts of other ailments. They cannot afford to see a podiatrist because that is not covered under the pharmacare program. The same goes for dental care: seniors cannot afford a visit to the dentist to ensure their dental hygiene.
You can understand that what we are calling for is very relevant: a 10% increase for anyone over the age of 65 who receives Old Age Security.
Senator Forest-Niesing: My next question will be for Mr. VanGorder.
[English]
Mr. VanGorder, thank you very much. I neglected earlier to thank both of our witnesses, not only for their testimony today but for the work that you do. It’s very important and very appreciated.
Mr. VanGorder, my question for you is about how you feel about the very important differences in some of the costs. Generally, I think we can all accept that there are higher costs, and those apply from coast to coast to coast for groceries or the other necessities of life. But, in particular, long-term care housing in Quebec is subsidized and is therefore substantially lower for an individual than it is in the other provinces. In Ontario, for example, we can very easily look at somewhere in the area of $5,000 for one individual. Do you feel that this needs to be taken into consideration when establishing these amounts and these types of measures?
Mr. VanGorder: That’s a very good point. Thank you for asking.
It’s important that the committee knows that when I talk about what C.A.R.P. is expecting, we are talking on behalf of our members. We survey our members on a regular basis, and these are the responses they’re giving us. The one thing that we hear more often with regard to your question is about the inequities across the country in the level of health care. Your postal code really does determine what kind of health care that you’re going to get. We’re firm believers. Our members want to know that if I live in Nova Scotia, I’m going to get the same level of health care that I did when I lived in Ontario or Alberta. It’s becoming more and more difficult. Because communications are getting better, our seniors are adapting to the new communications across the country and they’re learning more about how the government is failing to keep them up to the same standards.
We’re expecting the federal government to take a stronger role in making sure that these inequities go. We believe there should be a national seniors strategy, and we have pledged that if the federal government comes up with national standards, our members across the country will advocate with their provincial governments to get on board and not leave seniors as the ping-pong ball once again in the middle of a political discussion that is preventing them from living well and living happily in their older years.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I thank the witnesses.
I was happy to see you reacting in similar ways regarding the selected age group, as that does show some consistency across Canada.
Do you know what percentage of people who are part of that 65-to-74 age group will not benefit from this increase? Do those people have access to other services?
We have been told that people aged 75 and over are more vulnerable and have more needs. However, I know that some people between the ages of 65 and 74 are also vulnerable or will become vulnerable over time.
So are there services or other types of subsidies they could use while waiting to turn 75? Does that exist in Canada, Mr. VanGorder?
[English]
Mr. VanGorder: I am not aware of programs that specifically target that group that would balance off what’s happening with those over 75. In the older age group, even from 60 up, we have levels of poverty and need right across the country.
One of the problems is the piecemeal approach of trying to solve these problems with tweaks to the system. That’s why we really would like to see the government take an overall view of how we’re supporting our seniors so that we’re not, as my colleague said, making a two-class system out of it.
The simple answer to your question is no, there are not offsetting programs that aren’t available to the older group. Why the 75 was set as the age is beyond our comprehension.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I will discuss the same topic, but as it relates to age groups. When it comes to the 65-plus age group, do you have data on the different categories? I am using the term “category,” but I don’t mean it in a pejorative way. I am thinking of older women, older men, disabled individuals, older Aboriginals and older Black people. Are you familiar with those categories that could be used in the next brief to be submitted to the government? That may help highlight certain needs. Do you have that type of data?
[English]
Mr. VanGorder: There is one in particular that was referred to by my colleague. We know that in many parts of the country, especially rural parts once again, as Senator Black mentioned, over 30% of single women over 60 live at or below the poverty line. That’s one very specific group that continues to suffer from these inequalities of support.
[Translation]
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: I would just like to add something to what Mr. VanGorder just said.
Many women are living below the poverty line. I said earlier that many of them are widowed, so they have additional bills to pay after their spouse dies—whether we are talking about the rent, electricity, telephone services, and so on. You see that bills continue to arrive, but the person is living alone and is often a woman who was a caretaker, who was helping her aging parents. Women are often the ones who deal with that shortfall.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: This question is to both witnesses. I want to move our discussion away from this hypothetical poverty line and on to a slightly more tangible reality.
I’m not a mathematician, but by my calculations the GIS and the OAS will bring in for an individual — depending on previous income and length of stay, et cetera — about $1,500 a month. The OAS is probably the smaller proportion of that or maybe close.
We know that over 80% of Canadians living in long-term care are over the age of 75. The latest data that I’ve seen from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation points out that it costs about $3,000, on average, a month to be in a long-term care facility, and if you have memory impairment, it costs closer to $5,000 a month. So we have a $1,500-a-month income and a $5,000 a month expense. It sounds like government budgeting.
How helpful will the 10% increase in OAS be for our poorest citizens who are needing long-term care?
Mr. VanGorder: I’ll take that first, Senator Kutcher. We’re talking about a little over $60 a month. As I said in my presentation, no one can fault having more money for these most vulnerable people, but certainly $60 a month is not going to close that gap. These days, by the way, my figures show that closer to $3,600 is the low end of the long-term care rates. So it’s about half of what they really need.
The people we’re talking about are those who don’t have savings, pensions and any other income. This is what they’re fighting for.
There has to be another and better way to target them. That is why, as I said before, we’ve continued to urge the government to create an overall seniors strategy so we can deal with these issues specifically where they occur and not just make these overall mass approaches to try to fix a problem when we’re not zeroing in on the real needs like you have outlined.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: Certainly. I would like to add that the majority of seniors choose to grow old at home. It should be pointed out that long–term care facilities are health care settings, and not really living settings. Growing old at home is what the majority of seniors choose, and it is also a way to contribute to mobility, socialization, and a way to remain in their community, family and neighbourhood. It also provides safety.
Coming back to the 10% increase, as Mr. VanGorder was saying, that is not a lot of money at the end of the year, but those people desperately need it. Old Age Security provides $618 per month, and a person living alone who receives the Guaranteed Income Supplement has an income of $923 a month. Basically, $1,500 a month is very little if we take into account all the spending that can get added on. Right now, that amount strictly helps them survive.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those clarifications.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Again, I want to thank both our witnesses. You’ve been very helpful.
You talked about the need for a seniors strategy, so I may be steering a little away from the budget. We’ll be really quick on this.
The United Nations is trying to put forward a convention on the human rights of older persons, and it’s a project I’ve been involved in.
I would like your thoughts as to whether you think that if that convention was in place and if Canada was strongly supporting it — they moved to support it, I think, in beginning ways — do you feel we’d be dealing with a different situation today and it wouldn’t be $500 and 10%, but it might be that bigger strategy that you’ve talked about? If both of you could answer briefly, I’d love your viewpoints.
Mr. VanGorder: I’ll be brief and say, “good question.” It is certainly a project that we are supporting at C.A.R.P. Although there is always some question about whether UN resolutions and programs affect the bottom line, the fact is it does draw attention and maybe means our government will pay more attention to the needs of our most vulnerable Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: That is something to consider. Of course, a number of consultations should be carried out on the issue. Would that change the data? Possibly, but it is clear that we cannot remain silent in the face of such an initiative.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I missed half an hour of the meeting, so if my question has been asked already, please indicate so, as I would not want to waste anyone’s time.
My question is to both witnesses. This is, of course, prospective of the ways of ensuring the financial stability of our senior citizens outside of enriching it 10%, as we are now seeing. Some of the alternatives are, of course, that you make the OAS tax-free, or you increase it based on the consumer price index. Have those discussions been had? Have you done the analysis? Would that make more sense than a 10% increase annually? Is it a one-time increase?
The Chair: I see Mr. VanGorder smiling, so I think he has some thoughts on that. Then we will go to you, Ms. Tassé-Goodman.
Mr. VanGorder: I was hesitating because I seem to have jumped ahead of Ms. Tassé-Goodman a number of times; I want to give her an opportunity.
There are many alternatives and other ways of looking at this question overall. We believe that the government should take the lead. Every time we make a suggestion in terms of finances, we’re told, especially by the protectors of the tax part of government, that somehow that won’t work or it will cost a tremendous amount of money. So if the government agrees that we’re not looking after our most vulnerable seniors as well as we should, then we suggest you task your experts to come up with at least some alternatives and then let us talk about them.
No, we don’t have the technical resources, other than some wonderful volunteers across the country, to come up with these kinds of detailed solutions for government. If I’m wrong and if you think we should be doing it, that’s what I do, so tell me and we’ll do it. But I really believe that’s where your experts should be providing alternatives and options.
[Translation]
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: Those are my thoughts exactly. The government certainly has strategies or access to experts who can consider the issue of an increase.
When a senior receives the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security, their annual income is so minimal that they have no tax to pay in the end. Should the amount allocated be tax exempt? That is something experts should look into, and I think the government can do its homework, as well.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Do you have another question, Senator Omidvar?
Senator Omidvar: I’m just looking at the briefing notes. We are going to be paying $4.4 billion per year more every year on top of the baseline cost, which is $58.8 billion. This is no small change; this is very big money. I think I’m hearing both witnesses say that we need to look more broadly at the issue of income security of senior citizens in a way that encompasses many options.
Mr. VanGorder, I will tell you I am a very happy member of C.A.R.P., and I would suggest that advocacy from citizens always works.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Witnesses could provide a written answer to this question. I would like to know whether you have any data on the percentage of your members or, better yet, the percentage of seniors from across Canada whose only sources of income are Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
The Chair: Does that data exist, Ms. Tassé-Goodman? If so, could we get it?
Ms. Tassé-Goodman: We don’t have that type of data, as members won’t necessarily tell us they receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. However, the federal government has all that information in its database. I think the government could certainly provide you with it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will certainly ask the question.
Respected witnesses, I thank you for joining us, for your answers, but also for everything you are doing for our seniors. Thank you very much for your contribution today, but also every day.
We will now hear from the last witness panel for the day. We will shift our attention to clause 33 of the bill, which amends the Public Service Employment Act.
Without further ado, I introduce to you: from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Debi Daviau, President; Isabelle Roy, General Counsel and Chief of Labour Relations; from the Federal Black Employee Caucus, Jean-Sibert Lapolice, Strategic Engagement and Partnership Lead; from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Sharon DeSousa, National Executive Vice-President, as well as Seema Lamba, Human Rights Officer.
In terms of taking the floor today, I first invite Ms. Daviau to make her presentation, followed by Mr. Lapolice and Ms. DeSousa.
[English]
Debi Daviau, President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: Good evening. I am President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union that represents some 60,000 mainly federal public service professionals across Canada.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views today. With me is our General Counsel and Chief of Labour Relations, Isabelle Roy. We would be happy to answer any and all questions you may have following the presentation.
Our overall position on Division 33 of Part 4 of Bill C-30 is that the proposed changes represent an improvement on the existing Public Service Employment Act, the PSEA, by recognizing the impact of biases and barriers on the selection and promotion of candidates from equity-seeking groups. But I think it is fair to say that these changes are only a small part of what needs to be done to address the concerns that bargaining agents recently raised with respect to the PSEA.
In late January we participated in a National Joint Council Joint Employment Equity Committee consultation on the issue. There were multiple unions present, as well as representatives from the Public Service Commission, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Privy Council Office and the Centre on Diversity and Inclusion.
We were assured this would be the first consultation, not the last. We certainly hope this is the case because we have a number of concerns that were raised at the time and that I would like to bring to your attention today.
First, we don’t have a lot of confidence these days in federal staffing processes. There is a fear of retaliation when candidates complain about staffing. The recourse mechanism is weak. Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board recommendations have no effect on departmental practices. There is no means of monitoring the training of delegated heads, and human resources advisers don’t provide any kind of checks and balances and almost always take management’s side.
Second, the delegation of staffing authority from the Treasury Board and the public service managers has played a key role in creating the barriers to fairness, diversity and inclusion that our members encounter today. Non-advertised processes have dramatically increased from 29% of appointments in 2016 to 60% in 2020.
There is an inherent lack of transparency or fairness around why a non-advertised process is being used. Because of the demographics and biases of hiring managers, unadvertised processes only add to the exclusion of equity-seeking groups. The most common response that a complainant receives from a hiring manager is, “I can do whatever I want,” or there is no sound rationale presented, nor any openness to addressing why their candidacy cannot be considered, and no oversight or accountability.
Third, the system pits employees against employees instead of putting sufficient oversight and accountability with the delegated head. There is a lot of lip service paid to mental health and accessibility for disabled employees and improving Aboriginal representation, but no systematic requirements for challenging the biases that cause low representation numbers.
Fourth, public service surveys consistently reflect the cynicism and frustration of federal employees across all departments about how positions are staffed and how promotions are handed out. Inconsistent selection criteria are common; for example, increasing or decreasing education requirements to the benefit of a pre-selected candidate. Pre-qualified pools are often ignored.
Fifth, the right fit is often used to exclude better-qualified candidates. The Statement of Merit Criteria is adapted to narrow the field and favour the preferred candidate. Areas of selection have no real relevance, as they often bear little relation to the actual posted requirements, which are adapted to the narrow sector or branch.
Finally, acting appointments are made and extended, without any rationale, through non-advertised processes. Managers either select a favourite candidate with the advantage of experience and eventually named to that position or they appoint one of a series of candidates in acting positions for a time and they then deny them a permanent appointment on questionable grounds. They often even expect these employees to train the winner.
It’s clear that decisive and immediate action must be taken to finally create a federal workplace that reflects the people of Canada and their values. Legislative reform is needed to bring real oversight, transparency and accountability to government staffing processes. We need to ensure that assessment tools or interview skills are adapted to remove bias. Specific training is recommended for delegated heads in identifying and countering their biases.
In some workplaces, privacy concerns are sometimes used to prevent the disclosure of salary information. This can lead to abuses from members of equity-seeking groups. Salary levels should be published.
Bilingualism requirements can in some cases also become an obstacle for some of our members. The hands-off approach taken by the Public Service Commission suggests reluctance on its part to take on a necessary oversight role.
In conclusion, the representation of equity-seeking groups in the federal workplace cannot improve in the current context. It’s high time to stop putting forward a Band-Aid solution to this critical problem.
Thank you for your time. We would be very pleased to answer your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Lapolice, we will continue with your opening remarks.
Jean-Sibert Lapolice, Strategic Engagement and Partnership Lead, Federal Black Employee Caucus: Honourable senators, good evening. On behalf of the Federal Black Employee Caucus, FBEC, I want to thank you for inviting us to speak to the amendments proposed to the Public Service Employment Act.
Before going further, I would like to recognize that, since I am in Ottawa, I am on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.
Honourable senators, we at the Federal Black Employee Caucus were surprised and humbled by your invitation.
It is an honour and a privilege for me to appear before you today, on behalf of Black employees who are proud, competent, engaged and determined to serve Canadians and their country, Canada.
The Federal Black Employee Caucus, commonly referred to as FBEC, was created in 2017. Since its creation, FBEC has been working in close cooperation with central agencies in the public service, senior officials, union leaders, diversity and inclusion networks, as well as the Parliamentary Black Caucus. Our goal has been to promote the concerns of Black employees and to support national, regional and local efforts to address the challenges Black public servants face in the workplace.
For decades, Black employees constantly faced discrimination, harassment, microaggressions and a lack of professional development opportunities. Some will say that this is still the case today.
The FBEC was created because the system and mechanisms currently in place have not been enough to meet the needs and the expectations of Black employees. Both career progression and well-being in the workplace have been impacted.
We are, however, encouraged by our frank and honest discussions with senior officials within the federal public service. We are also encouraged and optimistic due to the collective will which has been expressed recently within the federal system, both from a political as well as a bureaucratic standpoint, in the fight against anti-Black racism.
The Clerk of the Privy Council’s recent call to action on anti-racism, equity and inclusion within the public service is an example of things that make us believe that the will is there.
The FBEC was consulted on the proposed changes to the Public Service Employment Act. We realize there is still much to do to eliminate anti-Black racism within the system.
We do think, however, that the proposed changes are a step in the right direction. They will give the federal public service tools to identify and eliminate systemic barriers for Black employees in recruitment and staffing.
Honourable senators, we understand that the Federal Black Employee Caucus does not have a mandate or any legislative authority. However, as long as we do not have a secretariat with an official mandate that deals with issues that Blacks face, the FBEC will continue to work on behalf of Black employees, by collaborating with the institutions and key stakeholders to eliminate harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
Over the past few years, many Black employees have expressed their concerns about prejudice, inequality and inconsistencies in performance and talent management programs within the public service. The system is sometimes perceived as being used to control and punish Black employees, going so far as to halt their career progression. This has a significant impact on the mental health of Black employees. The FBEC would like to work with the Treasury Board Secretariat in order to analyze the situation and take any necessary corrective measures.
I would like to take this opportunity to express our interest in the work aimed at updating the Employment Equity Act. The FBEC would be pleased to participate in similar conversations in the future, should you deem it appropriate.
Finally, on behalf of the FBEC, I would like to thank you, honourable senators, for your commitment, your leadership and your services. Thanks to your work, Canada will always be a wonderful place to live!
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now hear Ms. DeSousa’s presentation.
[English]
Sharon DeSousa, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada: Thank you. Today I’m speaking to you from Toronto, which is on the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents over 120,000 federal public service workers covered by the Public Service Employment Act. For years, our equity-seeking members have shared that they do not feel the current staffing process is inclusive. We welcome the amendment in the preamble to include the concept of an inclusive public service and the expansive definition of equity-seeking group to include all prohibitive grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. As well, the amendments to evaluation and examination of qualification standards and assessment methods, the use of audits and investigations and the expansion of citizenship preference to include permanent residents for external positions are all supported by the PSAC.
However, these initiatives don’t address the systemic issue wherein hiring managers have delegated discretionary powers that often go unchecked. The Public Service Modernization Act shifted staffing authority from the Public Service Commission, or PSC, to deputy heads to deal with staffing in their department. Deputy heads delegate the ability to make appointments and define merit to the lowest managerial level or front-line managers.
Managers don’t have to hire the most qualified candidate, but, rather, the candidate they think is the best fit. This has created the potential for abuse, and it disproportionately affects members of equity-seeking groups. The current direction in staffing initiative reinforces that delegation to the lowest levels leads to arbitrary staffing decisions and the appearance of favouritism.
From 2019 to 2020, the commission determined that 160 complaints within its mandates were related to errors, omissions, improper conduct or to merit not being met under the current definition. Of those, six were founded. With so much discretion given to hiring managers, we are not confident this avenue will be used successfully to address unfair treatment for equity-seeking groups. We also don’t know if deputy heads have investigated any appointment processes and/or revoked an appointment because there is no central location to obtain this information, and it is not in the PSC’s annual report. A hiring manager can decide on a best fit based on individual merit and does not have to advertise the position.
The current amendments do not address this issue. PSC will be able to audit staffing processes to determine if there are barriers, but it will not assist those who are currently adversely treated in the staffing process. The commission will not be able to provide systemic remedies to address the barriers and biases uncovered, especially if the authority has been delegated to deputy heads.
Division 33 does not address recourse processes that are inconsistent from one department to the next. The only internal process required under the act is an informal discussion that can be dismissed by managers as a mere formality. Decisions are seldom reversed.
In conclusion, PSAC has several recommendations. The commission should have the power to demand that departments have clear and transparent mechanisms and the authority to demand changes to processes and procedures. The commission must ensure that investigators tasked with identifying biases and barriers are doing so with the requisite experience and knowledge. Centralized staffing oversight by the commission should be increased to address the real cause of staffing discontent and slow processes. The use and abuse of discretion powers must be addressed.
Ultimately, the changes to the PSEA are not sufficient. Our members favour filing staffing complaints with the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. This bill’s proposed amendments do not address the barriers in the board’s complaint process. Major legislative changes are needed.
I would like to thank you for considering our comments and recommendations. Ms. Lamba and I are pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for their opening remarks. We will begin right away with questions from senators. Let’s begin with Senator Bovey, as deputy chair of this committee.
Senator Bovey: Thank you, witnesses. I very much appreciate the added dimensions you have given us to the materials that I had had access to before. I have to say, I was surprised by the statistic that non-advertised jobs have risen from 29% to 60%, Ms. Daviau. I’m hearing you all say that you’re pleased that staffing issues are coming forward and the goals to deal with biases, systemic barriers and employment equity are there, as well as the goal is to improve on all of that.
I want to know what effects non-advertised appointments within the public service really have on the advancement, career development and well-being of marginalized Canadians in the public civil service.
I have a corollary question to that, and then I’ll be quiet. When we take a look at hiring criteria — we’ve all hired over the years — we all come up with the job and the criteria for the job. We used to see the words, “You need this experience and education or equivalent.” I’m not seeing definitions of equivalency in job advertisements nearly as much as I did even 5 and 10 years ago.
Is one of the problems the lack of ability to define what an equivalency is to a level of education or job experience? But most importantly, what is the effect of the non-advertised appointments on marginalized Canadians, especially when you tell me about the growth of such appointments in the four-year period?
Ms. Daviau, perhaps you could begin. With time, others could add what they need to, to what hasn’t been said. Thank you.
Ms. Daviau: We’ve never been fans of the non-advertised process; that’s for sure. When it was enacted, we perceived it to mean that you can use a non-advertised process whenever you do not feel like using an advertised process. There was really no criteria that managers had to follow in order to access this type of process. Why wouldn’t a manager use a process where there is no requirement for them to go through adequate checks and balances, where there is no requirement to measure them up against other candidates? Unfortunately, since the majority of those hiring managers are not from equity-seeking groups, it is simply habit to hire people who are like you. That’s the impact, with regard to your first question.
I’m not sure if Ms. Roy has anything to add on that or the second question.
Isabelle Roy, General Counsel and Chief of Labour Relations, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: Yes, in fact. This may go to the second part of the honourable senator’s question in terms of the requirements or the criteria that are being assessed. We know statistically that non-advertised appointments are an extremely popular choice when it comes to acting appointments. Oftentimes, in order to be successful in the substantive appointment, you need to have demonstrated the experience that you will only have acquired through some of these acting opportunities. That’s compounding the problem, and the overall statistic issues really go unchecked, in terms of under-representation of those equity-seeking groups.
Without some more accountability, training and, really, a bit more centralization over these processes, delegated managers are continuing on in the practices that they’ve become accustomed to over time.
Senator Bovey: Having had a career in the not-for-profit world and with some federal funding in those decades, we weren’t allowed to hire in non-advertised jobs. This is a new phenomenon for me after all these decades. I find it makes it much easier to appoint those like me, rather than those who can best do the job. That is my thought — or am I wrong on that?
Ms. Daviau: To be fair to hiring managers, they don’t do it intentionally. Initially, they access these types of processes because they’re faster and it works better for them. The result is nonetheless the same.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Senator Black, do you have a question?
Senator R. Black: I had a couple of areas of questioning, but they were answered in the presentations by the three witnesses. I want to say thank you to the witnesses.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to all the witnesses. This is very difficult to hear. I believe my colleagues believe, as I do, that the federal government should be evaluated to a higher standard so that other institutions can follow. We are the federal government; we should take the lead. What you’re telling me is that the system seems to be driven by biases and processes that trip the search for equity. This amendment is all about process. We are looking for the right outcome, and one leads to the other.
My first question is to Ms. Daviau around unadvertised positions. The rise in unadvertised positions leads one to conclude that there is something not quite right. Would you like to see a limit on the number of unadvertised positions in the amendment? For example, should the federal government not use unadvertised positions in more than, say, 20% of its available vacancies? Would something like that meet your need?
Ms. Daviau: Certainly a limit is helpful, but it would be difficult to pick that limit without being arbitrary. More importantly, there needs to be a set of formal criteria — a much more robust set of criteria — that managers meet as overseen by the Public Service Commission, and they must meet those requirements in order to access this type of hiring.
Senator Omidvar: Should there be consequences attached to that if they don’t? Because we all know how systems can be run around.
Ms. Daviau: The Public Service Commission is probably in the position with the right authorities to prevent those staffing actions from taking place to begin with because they have to do their portion of the process. That is really the only place we’re seeing any oversight. Unfortunately, either they don’t have the right authorities or they’re not exercising all of those authorities over those processes.
Senator Omidvar: What do you think is the contributing factor to that incredible rise in unadvertised positions? What has changed in the last four years that has brought us to this point?
Ms. Daviau: The ability to staff this way isn’t that old. I’m sorry I don’t have the exact date, but it hasn’t been around that long. We have seen it ever increasing since it was declared as a feasible way to staff. The major factor for managers is that it’s easier and it’s faster. They can get around all the processes and all the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that there is equitable staffing, that there is no fraternization, favouritism or creating of systemic barriers for equity groups.
Senator Omidvar: Do you think that more process, more criteria, and more scrutiny should be added before a job is available to be filled without being advertised?
Ms. Daviau: Correct. We need more rules, more criteria, a more well-defined process and more oversight over that process.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that.
The Chair: Ms. DeSousa wanted to add something, if you’re okay with that, Senator Omidvar?
Ms. Daviau: Certainly, as a person of colour who comes from the public service, Ms. DeSousa has a lot of valuable contribution to make on this subject.
Ms. DeSousa: Yes, I would love to add a couple of points. The earlier question was about making the linkages of the impact. In order to get experience in the federal public service which is specific to advancement to various levels, you need opportunities. These less-than-four-month appointments take away opportunities from existing clientele within the federal public service who would then be able to gain that experience and apply for permanent jobs. If you look at the actual employment equity stats that just came out, in fact, it shows the lack of representation. Well, why is that? If you don’t have the opportunity, then how are you going to apply and meet the criteria?
On another note, I just want to point out this also impacts the economic security of that individual and their family in their community, which means they’re earning less. When they retire, that means their pension is less. When we’re talking about poverty, we’re talking about a cycle of poverty that creates a systemic barrier for that individual and their family to break that economic ceiling.
I just wanted to point out that without a doubt, when we’re looking at the processes, it’s not just the lens that the hiring is done. It’s not the merits. It’s the responsibility of development of that individual, and it’s also about looking at the checks and balances and who does that, because right now with the changes to the Public Service Modernization Act, there are only two grounds on which to complain for staffing — official languages and abuse of authority — and they’re difficult to challenge. Oftentimes we see it resolved in mediation, and that does not help our members who are looking for a career in the federal public service.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for pointing out the issue of equity of opportunity. That is an important point.
I thought I heard you say, Ms. DeSousa, that part of the problem seems to be the delegation of hiring authority down to line managers as opposed to a centralized system of staffing that meets not just the needs of the line but the needs of the whole. Would you like to see a centralized staffing model whereby hiring is done centrally, it meets the needs of the entire public service and it meets the needs of the individual hiring manager — but those are not the only needs at play? Is that something that you’re suggesting?
Ms. DeSousa: In light of that statement, senator, I agree. We do need a centralized body, but we need an oversight body. If you look at individual departments and their staffing authorities and initiatives that they have in place, it perpetuates this bias. It perpetuates this exclusion of equity-seeking members who are already part of the federal public service, and that is why we need an oversight body that has not just the ability to do investigations but to hold departments accountable, because there are departments that do not have, for instance, any racialized management team. That’s not acceptable in 2021, let alone those who self-identify with a disability or Indigenous. It’s extremely difficult.
How do we create a system that is fair and just and there is accountability and teeth with that body? Because it cannot just be a question of we check these boxes and here you go; and, okay, you didn’t do very well, so do better next time. That is not acceptable. Equity-seeking groups are tired, and they want to see real change within this act.
Senator Omidvar: So an oversight body that is independent or internal? I just need some clarity on that.
Ms. DeSousa: I would say it would have to be independent.
Senator Omidvar: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Lapolice?
[Translation]
Would you like to add something?
Mr. Lapolice: Quickly, I would simply like to add that Black employees within the public service in particular are not benefiting from non-advertised processes, and I am very happy to hear that the unions have expressed this as a concern.
From our point of view, given that there is now a huge gap, we would recommend targeted processes to try and catch up. I know that we can never make up for lost time, but we just want to say that in general, minorities and employment equity groups are not benefiting from these non-advertised processes.
The Chair: Mr. Lapolice, thank you for that.
Senator Mégie: I would like to thank all the witnesses. This morning, I heard one witness say that the government was already looking at measuring diversity within the public service and that it was actively seeking to set targets and try and reach them. This made me happy, but after having heard you this afternoon, I am astonished.
Mr. Lapolice, have you and your colleagues already felt the effects of what I’ve just described in your workplaces? I could also ask Ms. Daviau the same question. Do you have an inkling of what is really going on in the field? Are employees benefiting from the government’s efforts?
Mr. Lapolice: Senator, thank you for the question. Briefly, I believe the FBEC is seeing movement and willingness.
As I stated in my presentation, we are encouraged by what we are seeing from senior officials within the public service, both in bureaucratic and political terms. I know that funding was earmarked in the budget, and that Statistics Canada is being encouraged to undertake research and collect and analyze data on equity. This is a field that the FBEC has deemed very important, in order to get what is called disaggregated data. There has been movement, and there is a willingness on behalf of what I call “the system” to get the conversation going.
Within the federal public service and all of the departments right now, Black employees are allowed to meet and discuss amongst themselves. I am honestly thrilled. I have been working in the public service for 20 years now and at the beginning of my career, I remember that it wasn’t seemly for two or three Black people to sit together and talk. People immediately thought that they were plotting. We were not able to meet and have a chat.
Nowadays, however, there are conversations taking place within the public service. For example, the FBEC often has discussions with the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission of Canada. I genuinely feel that things are changing.
Recently, the Clerk of the Privy Council published a document entitled Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion. I think this is a tremendous document. If there really is the will to go ahead with this, then the entire public service should use it as a source of inspiration.
Frankly, there is movement and an openness within the system that we haven’t seen for a very long time, and this is what is giving us hope that the next few years will be better ones.
Senator Mégie: Ms. Daviau, do you have anything to say on the subject?
Ms. Daviau: Yes, thank you for the question, senator. I will ask Ms. Isabelle Roy to reply.
Ms. Roy: Thank you. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada agrees with the fact that we are currently seeing a marked improvement in terms of the government’s intentions. The measures contained in the bill currently being studied are proof of this. Without a doubt, there are signs of progress in the bill.
For us, the difficulty lies in the entire system that supports the measures contained in the bill. We’re talking about a staffing system that clearly lacks teeth. The Public Service Commission of Canada has a certain authority, but in our opinion, it is not really able to take steps and apply sanctions that would mean that real change would be possible. The same goes for the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board within the federal public service, whose jurisdiction in terms of staffing matters is extremely limited.
My colleague, Ms. DeSousa, spoke earlier about people being hired for acting positions for a period of less than four months. These processes are never looked at by a third party. There is no recourse for these staffing measures.
It is systemic factors like these that lead us to question the impact of legislative measures contained in the bill. We are not at all worried about the intentions. Rather, we are worried about certain measures that will possibly not be sufficiently supported within the system to bring about real change.
Senator Mégie: I am not sure who can answer my question. We have heard some suggest that an anonymous CV could help when decisions are made about whom to shortlist for staffing.
However, given that a CV contains not only a person’s last name but also information such as the country where the person studied, do you think that an anonymous CV could be a way of going around the problem or encouraging the hiring of immigrants and other people belonging to employment equity groups?
The Chair: Ms. Daviau, would someone like to answer?
[English]
Ms. Daviau: Yes, senator. Thank you for the opportunity.
We have done some work with the government around developing 42 very actionable recommendations, and one of them was a blind hiring pilot and it was the only one of the 42 items that I could see that was directly actioned. They did run a blind hiring pilot and the results, unfortunately, did not represent an improvement in hiring from equity groups. I’m not opposed to that, but I’m not sure that’s the solution to ensuring that hiring is fair. I think it’s more in and around making sure processes are advertised and go through the full process.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Daviau.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to all the witnesses this afternoon. It’s been informative, very concerning and you are being heard.
I want to start by sharing a quote from one of my favourite philosophers, who is Yogi Berra of the New York Yankees: “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might wind up somewhere else.” That tells me there is a plan of action and an ability to measure outcomes that is necessary.
I have two questions. First, what are the top five components of your plan of action “must haves”? We’ve heard about an independent oversight body; I assume that might be one of them.
Second, you need valid and reliable measures of workplace inclusion applied over time to determine if positive change is occurring and at what rate. What measures will you be using to do this and what is your strategy for applying them?
Seema Lamba, Human Rights Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada: I don’t know if I’m going to come up with five, but I can tell you some key ones.
One of the reasons why unadvertised positions are used so much is because of the change in definition of merit after 2003 in the Public Service Modernization Act. Before that, people were hired with relative merit, where they had to have a competition and they had to go through a process. After that definition of merit changed and the act changed to allow that you don’t have to have a competition anymore, that’s when many advertised positions started happening, and managers are getting to know that that’s useful and it’s fast. The definition of merit has to be re-examined at this point.
Another one is real meaningful recourses. The legislative change suggests that the investigations by the PSC and the deputy heads will include investigations based on bias or barriers for equity-seeking groups. Well, here’s the thing: When we were preparing for this, we asked who uses the investigation process. Not very many of our members use it, as far as we can tell, because it’s ineffective. The Public Service Commission doesn’t actually investigate. A lot of evidence is required, and if they have an unsuccessful investigation, their process is a judicial review. Deputy heads are biased in their processes so they tend not to investigate. That’s what we heard, and yet they’re making that change in the act to allow more to do that.
The question I posed to the Public Service Commission is this: If it’s not effective right now, why do you think it’s going to be effective by allowing investigations to address bias and barriers? That needs to be addressed. We need meaningful recourse mechanisms if staffing isn’t happening, whether that’s through the Public Service Commission, informal discussions or deputy head investigations, processes and changes to the labour board. That process is timely. There’s not a lot of time that’s given to file a complaint. It takes a long time. It’s after the fact and there are few avenues to demonstrate discrimination. It has already been mentioned that there are very few grounds. A meaningful recourse mechanism must be put in place to look at what the barriers are to that. I don’t think that has happened here.
Those are my top two that I can think of now. Obviously, in the other pieces we’ve talked about the centralization, but the discretionary powers by managers have to be dealt with. It just has to be. Our members have said over and over again that managers can do an unadvertised position or they can choose whomever. They can change the qualifications of a job, depending on who they want and we’ve heard that. “The qualifications got changed because they wanted so-and-so to be hired.” That’s a perception; whether that’s reality or not, that is what our members have been telling us over and over again.
I’m going to stop there because I’ve talked a lot, but I’ve named at least three.
The Chair: Thank you for this. I’m not sure if one of our other witnesses wanted to add one or two on top of that to make it to the five that Senator Kutcher asked for, but if you do, please jump in.
Ms. Daviau: Assuming that we’re able to reduce the number of non-advertised processes, we still need to look at the criteria for when it is appropriate to use those processes or not, and mechanisms to prevent those from being used inappropriately.
Ms. Roy: On the issue of accountability, there needs to be far better reporting. Some of the underlying principles of the act include accountability and transparency, although if you’ve tried to wrap your mind around what is happening in staffing in the public service, you will be bounced around between the Public Service Commission, the Privy Council, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer in the Treasury Board and each department’s delegated head as well. There needs to be a much clearer line of reporting and accountability.
The Chair: Thank you for this.
Senator Dasko: Before I ask my main questions, I wanted to follow up on what Ms. Lamba just said with respect to meaningful recourse. Are you suggesting that something should change in the bill that we’ve been looking at, or are you just kind of drilling down a little bit into what processes should be developed as a result of the bill. Are you saying there’s something in the bill that’s not good? From what you just said, I wasn’t quite sure. Could you clarify that?
Ms. Lamba: If the bill is passed and nothing else changes, it’s not going to be effective.
Senator Dasko: I see.
Ms. Lamba: The current process isn’t working with the investigations. There are probably things in the legislation that could be amended to make that better and for the Public Service Commission to be more proactive in doing investigations — actually being proactive and going in rather than waiting for a complaint. We know it’s not working because we heard the statistics. Out of 160, 6 were founded in that process that we’re now including. The process is [Technical difficulties] change. I would say that you could have legislative change too, but I realize it might be limited.
Senator Dasko: I would just say that it’s very hard to amend a bill — not that we couldn’t. I’m very interested to know that the bill isn’t going to hurt you, because if that’s what we concluded, we might want to do something a little more drastic. I’m just speaking for myself. What you’re saying is that the bill doesn’t hamper; it’s just that it doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head as far as you’re concerned. That’s fine.
I wanted to step back and ask a question that came up in my mind today while reviewing this and listening to the government people who came to speak to us before. There has been very little mention about how women are doing in the federal public service. I think there was one mention. Somebody suggested that women are maybe doing well at least in some respects in terms of something — it just wasn’t clarified.
I wonder if anybody would like to comment on that. We know that there are changes to the Employment Equity Act coming up at some point in the future, which we’ve been hearing about. Somebody just mentioned a couple of minutes ago that the employment equity statistics have just come out. I have to confess I haven’t seen them, so I don’t know what they show. I wonder if any of the witnesses, including Mr. Lapolice if you are on top of that, would like to address that topic.
Really, I’m asking about every aspect of women’s equality. I’m asking about promotions. I’m asking about pay, pay equity and every aspect of employment with regard to women. I really look forward to your answer. Thank you.
Ms. Daviau: Thank you. I really appreciate the question. Particularly now because of the pandemic, we’re seeing a disproportionate impact on women’s ability to participate in the workplace. Even before the pandemic, what we see in statistics from the federal public service — at least amongst our membership — is that yes, the majority of public servants are women. It’s a little higher than 55%, I believe. But when you drill down on those statistics, what you find is that women are typically in lower-ranking jobs than males. Certainly within my groups, a number of which are actually male-dominated, what we’re seeing is that as we start to even out on gender representation, women are still experiencing a glass ceiling within those ranks. While it’s 50-50 in one community, only 20% of executive-level positions or management-level positions are held by women. There is still a big gap.
I do think that a number of the issues we’ve raised with regard to equity-seeking groups also apply to gender in this matter.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment on that? Ms. DeSousa?
Ms. DeSousa: Yes, thank you. I think we need to break it down a little. We need to talk about women with an intersectional identity. Where are Indigenous women? Where are racialized and Black women in the federal public service? Where are women with disabilities? Where are trans women? I think we need to really take a step back and recognize that the Employment Equity Act and the statistics that we are provided need to drill down further. We’re dependent on the census to get information, but that does not really give us a clear picture of women in the federal public service.
I would say, based on what’s currently in society, that you do not see very many women with an intersectional identity in positions of power, in leadership and in excluded positions. I would say we need to gather that information, and we need to do affirmative action to ensure that the federal public service is truly represented at all levels with women with intersectional identities.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. That’s a very good point. Mr. Lapolice, do you have any comment on minority women in the public service?
[Translation]
Mr. Lapolice: Thank you very much, senator, for giving me the chance to comment. I will speak about the situation that Black women face. I don’t think I can speak on behalf of all of the women within the system, because I know there is data that shows that in general, women are doing fairly well, but when it comes to Black women, there is still a lot to be done.
It is known that the Black community, including women, is generally seen to be at the bottom of the ladder. I know that over the past few years, progress has been made in general within the public service, but the problems are still there. It isn’t easy being Black, being a woman and being a handicapped Black woman, and when you factor all that in, I agree with Ms. DeSousa when she talks about intersectionality. I think that we have to look at existing data and that’s why the Federal Black Employee Caucus is really insisting on disaggregated data. It is very important that we look at the data and if we don’t have it, we have to find it where it is, analyse it and take the appropriate measures to correct the situation.
Again, I realize that Black women still have a way to go within the system, and therefore I agree with the persons who spoke before me.
[English]
Ms. Daviau: We had recently done a survey of our members on the use of the code 699, because we were concerned that it was being handled differently depending on demographics. The results were pretty staggering.
Women were two times more likely to be denied this type of leave in general, but when we drill that down and disaggregate it a little bit, we find that women from LGBTQ2S communities were 2.2 times more likely to be denied, racialized women were 2.8 times more likely to be denied, Indigenous women were 3.5 times more likely to be denied and women with disabilities were five times more likely to be denied than their male counterparts. That brings the statistics into a very current issue we’re facing.
Senator Dasko: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: We are currently studying the budget implementation act. In the fall statement, $12 million had been earmarked for issues linked to inclusiveness and bias that exist within the public service. The federal government is now doing some in-depth work. Indeed, it is reviewing the Employment Equity Act. This is a wide-ranging initiative.
I believe that the federal government used the budget implementation act to make some quick fixes while it is waiting for a more complete review of the act that will take into account all the excellent comments that we have heard from witnesses who are testifying today.
I would like to hear the witnesses on the opportunity which is being taken by the government to bring about certain changes and highlight some problems in terms of staffing, but also allowing for a complete review of the Employment Equity Act in order to take on board many of the comments we have heard today. Thank you.
[English]
Ms. DeSousa: Yes, I will start off. Then, I will refer to my colleague.
First, I would like to say that it’s wonderful this is on the agenda for the Government of Canada to take a look at the federal public service and to put monies toward this type of inclusivity and elimination of bias. However, my question is: When we talk about the Employment Equity Act, who is being consulted? Who has a seat at the table for that task force? How is that consultation going to happen? That’s where my concern comes from.
At the end of the day, if those who are actually affected by the act do not have a seat at the table to provide suggestions and feedback, how is it actually going to be rolled out with everyone’s perspective taken into account? Currently, there are major gaps. My concern is that the money is only one step of it, but other important aspects are the process, the consultation and how that will roll out, I guess you could say.
I’m going to turn it over to my colleague for comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Lapolice: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am most grateful. I think that is exactly how the FBEC perceives the current process. We are going through a process, I wouldn’t call it hesitant, but it is rather limited in scope, and later, we will try to make more headway or be more ambitious in terms of the Employment Equity Act.
This issue is of interest currently to the FBEC. I am saying this to all those who are listening, just like Ms. DeSousa. The FBEC would love to be invited to participate in any consultations on the modernization efforts. We are very much interested in working on the Employment Equity Act.
Ms. Daviau: May I ask Ms. Roy to reply?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Ms. Roy: As I stated earlier, all these initiatives are a step in the right direction and indeed, if changes are to be made to the Employment Equity Act, we would certainly like to have a seat at the table, with all important stakeholders, as Mr. Lapolice has said.
I would not, however, downplay the concerns expressed this evening regarding the Public Service Employment Act. The Employment Equity Act will not eliminate all the loopholes in terms of the responsibilities of delegated managers nor the absence of recourse under the Public Service Employment Act that we highlighted this evening.
We understand that there will be various stages and different ways to get there, but in our opinion, it will not be enough to only change the Employment Equity Act. I don’t know if Ms. Lamba has something to add.
The Chair: Ms. Lamba, have you anything to add?
[English]
Ms. Lamba: Yes, I wanted to make a distinction between the PSEA — this is mandatory staffing that the PSC, the Treasury Board and other departments have to do — and the Employment Equity Act, which is mandatory but also inspirational. It requires certain things under the act, like workforce analysis, employment system reviews and employment equity plans. Over the years, that hasn’t been happening very well, but they have to follow the PSEA staffing rules. There are differences between the two.
I don’t want to leave you with the impression that if this doesn’t fix it, the Employment Equity Act will. I couldn’t agree more with Isabelle on that point. That’s why the PSEA is important to fix the barriers for equity-seeking groups. Employment equity can be strengthened. It can be better, and we will deal with it when reviewing it. We hope to be at the table to bring our lens to it, but this is very important legislation as well. That’s what I wanted to point out. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for this.
Senator Moncion: Because of the BIA, I think the government is looking for quick fixes, so part of the problems we are seeing are being brought into one legislation so they can start looking into this. This is not a complete fix, but it is a first step toward having this somewhere so the government can start doing things with it and putting money into the project.
I think there is a strategy here because of the government’s situation and the fact that they do not have a lot of time to bring changes. That is just to add to your comment. All the comments are excellent, and I really enjoyed hearing the concerns. Thank you very much to all the witnesses.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moncion.
I think we all appreciated your comments very much, even if some of it is difficult to hear. It tells us a lot about the different challenges still ahead of us, with or without this bill.
On that, I think it is time for us to conclude.
[Translation]
I would like to again thank the witnesses for the quality of the information that they have provided us with this evening. This will really help us with our pre-study. I would also like to thank my colleagues.
[English]
Thank you all so much for your preparation.
Ms. Daviau: And on such a lovely day. Thank you for your sacrifice. It was so beautiful outside today.
The Chair: Absolutely. On that, thank you. We will see you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)