Finance Committee on May 17th, 2021

[Christine Jodoin]

No. That is right when there's a pandemic emergency. We're a gap-filler in terms of making sure that there is production capacity if it's required for cell-based biologics.

Separate from that, in non-pandemic periods, we'll be focusing on pandemic preparedness, but we'll also be focusing on other production biologics such as infectious diseases and orphan drugs for rare diseases. We will collaborate with the private sector with that, because the key thing that's one element in terms of the mandate is that this is an example of how we will help to increase the biometric capacity of the private sector.

In such cases, for example, we will work with SMEs that in some instances today have limited access to be able to scale up in a facility of this nature. That's an example of where we will bring them in to support the capacity.

What I want to confirm is that in every respect of the mandate, we will always be collaborating with the biomanufacturing sector, but the key priority will be that we will have our facility on a constant readiness state to be able to pivot to respond to pandemic emergencies in collaboration with the private sector and academia.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I just want to make sure that I'm hearing you correctly. You're saying that in general—when it's non-pandemic, non-emergency—you're going to be doing research, but then when it's a pandemic or something along those lines, you pivot to production.

[Christine Jodoin]

Thank you. I just want to clear up one thing. We're not actually doing research. The facility is focused on production, so what we're going to be doing is helping to put to market drugs that the private sector right now can't on its own, either because there is a high risk of failure or because there's a lack of profitability. That was the example I brought in terms of orphan drugs for rare diseases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Thank you both for your presentation and responding to our questions.

With that, we will have to suspend until the next panel, so for those who are here presenting part 4, divisions 31, 33 and 37, we will have to find another time to schedule you back.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, go ahead, Pat.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Do you want to try to get through that? We've made up time in some of our other panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Where are we, Mr. Clerk, with the next panel? Are they all in yet?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Yes, they're all in the waiting room, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, let's give it a try. We'll go five more minutes or so and see if we can get through these three divisions.

Division 31 is on first nations elections. Does somebody want to give us that presentation? We'll see if we can go through these quickly. If we can't, we'll have to suspend and go to the next panel.

[Christopher Duschenes, Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will go as fast as I can.

I'm coming to you from unceded Algonquin territory. My name is Christopher Duschenes. I'm the director general of economic policy development at Indigenous Services. I'm here with Yves Denoncourt, the director of governance operations, and Karl Jacques, our senior legal counsel.

We welcome this opportunity to explain the measure of retroactivity to validate the First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations.

In March 2020, early in the pandemic, many band councils governed under the Indian Act and under the First Nations Elections Act were faced with a dilemma: hold elections in their communities during the pandemic, despite strong advice from public health experts to avoid gatherings and social interactions that could contribute to the spread of COVID-19, or wait for their terms to expire and leave their communities without leadership, creating a government gap.

Neither the Indian Act nor the First Nations Elections Act provides chiefs or councils with the ability to extend their terms. In response to first nations public health concerns surrounding the pandemic, the Governor in Council, on advice of the Minister of Indigenous Services, made the First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations. The regulations allow first nations chiefs and councils, including leaders from bands holding elections under custom code, to extend the terms of office of the chief and of the elected council for up to six months, with a potential second extension of up to six months. The decision to post the election is under the purview of chiefs and councillors, and must be made by a band council resolution submitted to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

The regulations were enacted with a sunset clause of April 8, 2021. On April 1, the Federal Court found that section 4 of the regulations, specifically enabling chiefs and councils of bands holding their elections under custom code to extend their elections, was ultra vires and invalid. The Government of Canada is appealing the Court decision as of April 6. The regulations have been extended for a period of six months with a sunset clause now of April 8, 2021.

Division 31 seeks to retroactively validate these regulations to ensure that decisions that were made pursuant to these regulations are valid, and that no concern related to the power and the authority of chiefs and councils during that time comes into question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Christopher.

Are there any questions on division 31?

All right, then we will move on to division 33 and the Public Service Employment Act.

[Selena Beattie, Executive Director, People Management and Community Engagement, Workplace Policies and Services Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before beginning, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm dialing in from the traditional unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I'm joined by Michael Morin of the Public Service Commission, which will be a key player in the implementation of these amendments.

Last October, an action plan was announced in the throne speech to increase representation and improve leadership within the public service.

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 intention to propose amendments to the Public Service Employment Act to reaffirm the importance of a diverse and inclusive workforce and to strengthen provisions to address potential bias and barriers in the staffing process.

The first proposed change is to add a clear commitment from the government towards a public service that represents the diversity of Canada. This change would therefore confirm that diversity and inclusion are primary considerations as set out in the act and are taken into account as objectives during the hiring process.

Second, the bill proposes that there would be a requirement that the establishment or review of qualification standards, which are what can set minimum requirements on things such as education, professional certification and official languages, include an evaluation of bias and barriers, and that reasonable mitigation efforts be made.

Third, the bill proposes that the design and the manner of application of assessment methods, which can be things like interviews, written tests or reference checks among others, include an evaluation of bias and barriers, and that again reasonable mitigation efforts be made.

The fourth proposal is that the auditing authorities of the Public Service Commission of Canada as well as the investigating authorities of the Commission and the deputy ministers take into account prejudice and barriers.

Fifth, the bill proposes to expand the preference for Canadian citizens in staffing processes open to the public to include permanent residents. Currently the act gives preference to Canadian citizens in external advertized processes, which can be a very important entry point to the public service. What this means is that if one qualified candidate is a citizen and another is not, the citizen must be appointed. The amendment would expand this preference to include permanent residents.

Sixth, the proposal includes a broad definition of equity-seeking group. This means that the provisions of the bill would apply to a broad definition of groups that is based on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination as outlined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which include race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability and others.

If these proposals are approved, they will be put into place after close consultation between employee diversity networks, bargaining agents and senior officials who are responsible for employment equity, diversity and inclusion, in order to support the overall vision of a public service which is more representative of the population it serves and values and celebrates diversity and inclusion.

I would be pleased to answer any questions that committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Ms. Jansen.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I wonder if you could clarify this for me. I understood you to say that a reference check could be a barrier to inclusivity. Are you suggesting then that if someone from a minority would not be able to provide a reference check that it would be a barrier and so therefore they wouldn't need any longer to provide a reference check?

[Selena Beattie]

Thank you very much. I'm happy to help explain that provision of the legislation.

Currently the legislation gives the Public Service Commission—and this power is delegated to deputy ministers and hiring managers—the authority to use any assessment method they wish. That could include an assessment method such as a reference check.

There have been submissions from both the equity-seeking groups and the bargaining agents, and evidence through an audit conducted by the Public Service Commission, that different assessment methods can pose bias or barriers to groups in different kinds of ways.

The requirement in the legislation would be for an evaluation of the mechanism to be done to determine if that does pose bias or barriers, and if a bias or barrier is found, to seek reasonable mitigation efforts.

I can't prejudge right now the conclusion of what that evaluation would find, nor what the reasonable mitigation might be. It could be about the way a tool is used—for example, the types of questions asked. It could be about the degree to which something is used exclusively, and so on and so forth, but that would be part of the tool that would be developed to evaluate whether a barrier or a bias is, in fact, posed by that assessment method, and if so, what is reasonable as a mitigation method under the circumstances.

That does not necessarily mean that a specific tool might not be used at all. It might mean that there might be suggestions made about how to use that tool to seek to minimize any potential barriers that it includes.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

You also mentioned someone's inability to speak French may also constitute a barrier. Is that correct?

[Selena Beattie]

I did not speak about languages in the specific amendments.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I thought I heard that, sorry.

[Selena Beattie]

The linguistic requirements under the act are a separate consideration.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Before I go to Ms. Dzerowicz, Ms. Beattie, how many more public servants will it require to do the supervision of the folks doing the hiring within the Public Service of Canada, to manage this new system?

[Selena Beattie]

The Public Service Commission will be responsible for implementing these amendments. They are currently developing their implementation plans.

I don't know if Mr. Morin is with us, and if he has anything more to add on that point.

[Michael Morin, Director General, Policy and Strategic Directions, Public Service Commission]

Yes, I can add.

We are currently looking at additional resources. These will be to develop new policies, to look at tools to support hiring managers through this process, as well as to conduct audits and investigations related to the changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Dzerowicz.