Finance Committee on May 17th, 2021

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you, Ms. Beattie, for the excellent presentation.

I'm very supportive around anything we could do to make our public service more inclusive, more diverse, more reflective of Canada. I don't know if you can comment on this. I'm a little surprised that this is a legislative change in terms of our actually having to review qualifications standards. It's odd for me. One would think that would be more of an administrative thing. I wonder if you could just comment in general about that.

The second comment I have is around giving permanent residents the same preference as Canadian citizens in externally advertised appointment processes. I just need you to explain that one more time. I'm very open for permanent residents to apply for jobs within the public service. I'm just trying to understand what the change is. I'm not quite sure why I didn't hear it properly. Is it that right now permanent residents are not allowed to apply for a job, or if they do apply for a job and a Canadian citizen applies for a job, and they're both equally qualified, that the Canadian citizen gets the preference?

[Selena Beattie]

I'm happy to answer both of those questions.

Your first question is about why these changes are being done legislatively. It is true that many of the mechanisms, but not all of them, could be done through program or policy or other tools. Enshrining the requirement in legislation, of course, brings additional gravitas and enforceability to them for those who will be charged with actually enforcing them.

One change that is not possible to do through program or policy is the amendment to the preference.

Let me just go back and state that for the things that are possible to do through program or policy, qualification standards now are currently reviewed for bias or barrier. This is adding an extra layer of having a legislative requirement.

In terms of the citizenship preference, there is no official or legislative impediment to permanent residents' being hired in the public service. The challenge is the mechanism through which an appointment is actually made. The legislation contains a preference for external, advertised appointments, so these are positions that would be posted for anyone, broadly, to apply. For someone who might already be internal or for a position that is not widely advertised, there is currently no block on a permanent resident's being appointed to those positions.

For these external advertised positions, however, the legislation states that there is a preference for Canadian citizens. That doesn't mean that permanent residents are prevented from applying; it doesn't mean that they're prevented from being considered. It means, however, that when the hiring manager assesses all of the essential criteria, if they have a permanent resident and a Canadian citizen who both meet the essential criteria, the Canadian citizen must be hired, given the preference over the permanent resident.

What the amendment would do is add the preference to the permanent resident. The Canadian citizen and the permanent resident would then have the equal chance of being hired, if they both met the essential criteria. The expectation is that this would reduce a barrier for some who are otherwise qualified to work for the public service.

Of course, those external, advertised appointments are really a key foot in the door for many people to join the public service.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fast and Mr. Falk, let us, if we could, be fairly snappy. We are going to have to go to the next panel. We'll leave division 37 and recall them another day.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Well, I'm guessing Mr. Falk is going to ask the same question I was going to ask, based on the last comments that came out about Canadian citizens versus permanent residents.

I think what you're saying, Ms. Beattie, is that permanent residents, when it comes to hiring, will be elevated to the same level or status as Canadian citizens. Am I correct in understanding that?

[Selena Beattie]

They will have the equivalent chance, yes; that's correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What prompted this?

[Selena Beattie]

The overall goal of the legislation is to seek to reduce bias or barriers to members of equity-seeking groups. There is some evidence that members of visible minorities are screened out of processes at a higher rate because of the permanent resident preference, and so it constitutes a barrier for some members of visible minorities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Really? This really floors me, that my Canadian citizenship does not give me priority over a permanent resident. That just blows my mind. The justification you've just given for it doesn't convince me. I'm open to being convinced, so I challenge you to provide me with a more convincing argument.

I want to get back to a different issue. Close to the end of your comments, you listed the different groups that might be discriminated against or may have bias against them.

Could you go through that list again for me?

[Selena Beattie]

The groups that are going to be protected from discrimination are listed in the grounds that are in the Canadian Human Rights Act. They're the grounds that are referred to in the definition of “equity-seeking group”.

In subsection 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that includes “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability”, etc. That's the reference to the Canadian Human Rights Act categories.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You said “et cetera”. Are there others listed there?

[Selena Beattie]

There is one more, which is not typically one of the grounds that we see. It is “conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted”.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

All right. I think that's all I need to know, but I am concerned about the comment that my Canadian citizenship no longer provides me with priority over those who are not citizens. That—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just to remind members, we do have the right to pull any of these witnesses back over the next week or 10 days if we must, when you've slept on it.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fast is correct that I do want to follow up on comments that he made.

I think I heard Ms. Beattie correctly when she said in response to somebody's question that this amendment would actually provide preference for a non-resident.

I'd like to know, too, in what space would we see that an appointment for a position by the Government of Canada should not give preference to a Canadian citizen? That just boggles my mind, so help me understand.

[Selena Beattie]

Mr. Falk, I'm happy to clarify for you. The amendment does not give a preference to a non-resident in any way, shape or form. The preference that currently exists in the act applies to some appointments in the public service. Currently, about 45% of appointments are done through this non-external advertised mechanism. It does not prevent a permanent resident from being considered, but it does state that if a Canadian meets the essential qualifications they are given the preference.

The amendment proposes that a permanent resident would be given an equal opportunity as the Canadian citizen to be considered for these processes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay, I'm just reminded of that slogan that the Amex Bank used to have, that membership has privileges. Certainly I would like to think citizenship has privileges.

I don't know if that's a direction that you've been given or if it's something that's a suggestion by a department, but this certainly needs very serious reconsideration.

[Selena Beattie]

Consideration of the citizenship policy objectives of the government is important. Some might express a concern about access to Canadian jobs, but permanent residents having access to public service jobs could result in greater social participation and attachment and could be a motivation towards citizenship. Canada will continue to promote the benefits of citizenship. That is certainly a consideration for parliamentarians in considering your support for the bill, but to be very clear, the intention of the amendment is to ensure that permanent residents and Canadian citizens will be on equal footing when it comes to applying for jobs to join the public service. In all cases, merit will continue to be the underlying primary principle of the hiring process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just on that last point, I'm increasingly concerned about the lack of emphasis that seems to be in the public service these days on the ability to do the job and the lack of emphasis on experience, life experience. In terms of people I question who've been interviewed to go into the public service, experience no longer seems to matter. In my view, it should.

Therefore, I'd ask you these two questions: How much does experience matter in terms of getting into the public service; and how much does the ability to do the job matter in terms of getting into the public service?

I'll tell you what I mean. Within the public service now you can transfer from Veterans Affairs to Agriculture. You get first priority because you're in the public service, but you might not know a damn thing about agriculture. That's part of the problem.

Could you answer that question? After that, we'll have to move on.

[Selena Beattie]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

I'm going to invite my colleague Mr. Morin from the Public Service Commission to comment on that, given that I'm certainly not an expert in the appointments processes and requirements for them.

Mr. Morin, would you care to address Mr. Easter's question?

[Michael Morin]

What I could say is it would depend on the nature of the position. Is it an entry-level position? Is it something that requires depth of experience? Individual hiring managers have to decide what the necessary qualifications are so that someone is able to meet merit for the job. That could include a range of different experience factors. It could include abilities and skills. It could include knowledge. There's no specific formula for deciding which. It really is dependent on the needs of the specific position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'd better move on. I'd better not get into that one.

In any event, thank you to our witnesses on division 33. Thank you, both. My apologies to those who are here on division 37. I think that might be a little longer discussion as well, so we will leave that one and we will invite you back.

Thanks to all the witnesses on this first panel. Thanks, number one, for what you do for the country. We may disagree from time to time, but we really do thank you for the efforts you made during the last couple of years. COVID has really made us all struggle. There's no question about that. Thank you for what you do for Canada. It's much appreciated, and that's on behalf of all the members of the committee.

With that, we will release this panel. Mr. Clerk, we will take a two-minute suspension and we'll go to the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll recall the meeting to order.

For those on the new panel, this is meeting number 44 of the finance committee. As you know, we're meeting on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19.

First of all, my apologies to witnesses for having you sit in the wings for, probably, an hour of your time, or 45 minutes. We were late starting here. We were trying to finish the other panel.

In any event, all the witnesses here, I believe, are from the Department of Employment and Social Development. We'll deal with part 4, divisions 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36.

I would ask whoever is speaking on each section, to introduce yourself, tell us your position and introduce whatever colleagues may be here to assist you.

We'll start with division 21, which is the Social Security Tribunal, SST. Ms. Pelot, go ahead.

[Lorraine Pelot, Director General, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Lorraine Pelot. I'm director general in the income security and social development branch. I'm here with my colleague Tara Bélanger Zahab.

Division 21 of part 4 amends part 5 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to make certain reforms to the Social Security Tribunal. The Social Security Tribunal was created in 2012 and became operational in April 2013 as a single-window, independent tribunal to replace four separate administrative tribunals that had made decisions on appeals for benefit claims under the employment insurance and income security programs.

The income security programs I mention include the Canada pension plan, including Canada pension plan disability and old age security.

In August 2019 the government committed to introduce legislation to reform the Social Security Tribunal and make the appeals process for income security programs more client-centric, more streamlined and faster.

The most important legislative amendments are designed to streamline and simplify the recourse processes; introduce a de novo model for second-level income security appeals within the SST in which new evidence is allowed, with a new and final decision on benefits eligibility; and provide authority to the chair of the SST to make rules of procedure that will govern the way the SST functions during the processes.

Regulations, to follow, would be created to include allowing the choice of form of hearing for appellants and authorizing all parties to request that all or part of their hearing be held in private.

I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does anyone have any questions?

We'll start with Mr. Fast and then go to Ms. Jansen.