Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2018

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Good morning, everyone. Today's meeting, as we had scheduled, is on the name-blind recruitment pilot project.

We have before us from the Public Service Commission Patrick Borbey, the President; Stan Lee, the Vice-President; and Charles Tardif. From the Treasury Board, we have Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister.

Welcome to all.

Mr. Borbey, do you have any opening remarks?

[Patrick Borbey, President, Public Service Commission]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee to share what we have learned as we have explored the use of anonymized applications and its impact on the screening and recruitment of visible minorities within the Canadian public service. As you said, I'm accompanied here by colleagues from the Public Service Commission, whom you introduced, but I also want to note that I'm pleased to have Carl Trottier here.

The Public Service Commission and the office of the chief human resources officer work closely together on many files. Mr. Trottier has been involved in this pilot project since day one. I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the help and support of the many departments and agencies who participated in this pilot. It is through these types of partnerships that we can get a government-wide perspective on important staffing matters.

The Public Service Employment Act states that:

Canada will continue to benefit from a public service that is based on merit and non-partisanship and in which these values are independently safeguarded;

It goes on to recognize that:

Canada will also continue to gain from a public service that strives for excellence, that is representative of Canada's diversity and that is able to serve the public with integrity.

These are powerful words, and it is because of them that the Public Service Commission of Canada considers diversity and inclusion as fundamental components of its mandate. Therefore, we are always exploring innovative ways to improve recruitment methods. This pilot project is one of the many activities we have undertaken in our attempt at doing so. For example, over the years we've implemented a series of tools in support of barrier-free recruitment. Some of these include universal design for testing of candidates; employment equity targeted recruitment programs; machine-scored testing to eliminate subjectivity; training to avoid bias during selection processes;

a recruitment system that offers automated screening and random selection of candidates; policies that provide the option to restrict recruitment to members of employment equity groups, to improve representation where gaps are identified; and an attestation form—which I've attached—that is signed by all managers with staffing delegation.

At the Public Service Commission, we believe in the power of experimentation to drive evidence-based innovation. Our work on anonymized application is an example of this experimentation.

You will note that I am stressing the “anonymizing” aspect of our work. While we originally referred to this as “name-blind recruitment”, because this was the term recognized internationally, it is our view that the idea of anonymizing better reflects the approach we have taken. In other words, it is the removal of all personal information that could lead to the identification of a candidate's origin, as opposed to merely the removal of an individual's name.

I will take a moment to quickly recap the features and findings of the pilot.

It included 27 positions advertised to the public from 17 departments and agencies. This resulted in a sample of over 2,200 candidates, of which 685, or 31%, self-identified as visible minorities.

In keeping with research standards, our pilot project was reviewed by three external experts—two members of academia and an expert in methodology. In addition to complying with research standards, we considered peer review essential to ensure that the conclusions from our project were warranted and reasonable.

Overall, the pilot found that there was no net benefit or disadvantage to using the anonymized screening method for visible minorities. It also showed that the anonymized method reduced the screen-in rate for all other applicants. Not surprisingly, the results showed a strong correlation between previous government experience and screen-in rates for all candidates.

There are always limitations when it comes to research methodology. Being open about these is considered a professional obligation, and so you will notice that our final report identified several limitations related to this particular project.

It should be noted that when we designed our methodology, we tried to specifically address some of the limitations reported in previous research papers on the subject, such as using fabricated resumes and fictitious staffing processes. We also recognized that our pilot would shed additional light on anonymized recruitment and that further research or work would be necessary.

Our report was clear that the findings provided one additional source of evidence, but would not provide the complete answer on the applicability of anonymized recruitment in the federal public service. In other words, this pilot was never intended to be a silver bullet solution; rather, it was developed to contribute to, and complement, the existing body of evidence.

With regard to next steps, the Public Service Commission is undertaking a formal audit to examine the success rate of employment equity groups at key stages of the recruitment process. This approach will provide us with additional evidence while addressing some of the limitations—namely, that managers were aware of their participation in the pilot project and that we were dealing with organizations who had volunteered to participate. The audit will also examine hiring practices to identify areas that may contain potential barriers or that may, for one reason or another, be more inclusive.

The Public Service Commission will also share its methodology with departments and agencies who may decide to anonymize applications for their staffing processes.

We will also explore how anonymizing principles could be included in the design of any future technology changes to our recruitment systems.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I want to assure this committee that the Public Service Commission is fully committed to diversity and inclusion, and will continue to take steps to keep these values at the forefront of public service recruitment and staffing. As an example, we will continue to provide targeted recruitment programs, such as the indigenous student employment opportunity, which offers indigenous full-time students work experience in the federal public service.

We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Committee members, we will be going till a quarter to one, after which we will consider committee business.

We'll start the first round with Monsieur Ayoub.

You have seven minutes.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, gentlemen, thank you for being here.

The pilot project is certainly compelling.

You may have mentioned it, but why did the Public Service Commission undertake a pilot project with a view to improving practices? Do you know whether anyone else in Canada or the world has ever undertaken a pilot project of this magnitude? If so, how do those results compare with yours?

[Patrick Borbey]

Thank you for the question.

Other countries and even some Canadian provinces have undertaken similar pilot projects and studies, but our pilot was the largest and used actual staffing processes. As I mentioned, some other projects relied on fictitious processes and resumes. Consequently, they did not test real staffing processes used by real managers making staffing decisions about real applicants and cases.

I believe our pilot was slightly more comprehensive than anything that had been done previously. We did look at pilot projects and studies undertaken in Australia and France, and that research helped us in developing our methodology. The answer is yes, we did take into account other projects that had been done abroad. In some cases, the experts who reviewed our pilot had conducted studies, but those were much more limited in scope.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'm going to stay on the same topic.

Certain parts of the public sector no doubt have an interest in increasing the number of women and Indigenous people on staff, and even men, in areas where they are under-represented. The goal is to achieve a better balance by ensuring that every member of the population has equal access to employment opportunities.

If I understand correctly, your preliminary finding was that the method used in the pilot offered no real benefit and made little, if any, difference. Any impact was quite minimal. Did this method of using real, but anonymized, applications lead to any sector-specific findings? For instance, did you find that the method would have made it possible to hire more women in a given sector? Conversely, were you unable to arrive at those kinds of conclusions?

[Patrick Borbey]

The methodology has its limitations. Our main focus was on visible minorities. We didn't take gender equity into account.

In Canada, the process is more complicated, because it's actually very hard to anonymize or defeminize a resume or job application in French. It's easier in English, but it's very hard in French.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Could you kindly explain why it's harder to do in French? Is it due to gender?

[Patrick Borbey]

Yes, that's exactly it. One of the problems is the constant use of “il” and “elle”—or “he” and “she” in English. That's why we didn't take into account gender equity. Instead, we really focused on visible minorities.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

It's not impossible. Unless I'm mistaken, it's a bit harder, but it's doable.

[Patrick Borbey]

If it's all right with you, I will ask our methodology expert to comment on that.

[Stan Lee, Vice-President, Oversight and Investigations, Public Service Commission]

Technically, it's impossible. In French, the phrase “Je suis diplômé”—“I am a graduate”—would take an additional “e” at the end in the case of a female graduate. The removal of that “e” automatically indicates the information being excluded. Even if the resume were to be anonymized, the text would reveal the gender with which the person identified.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I see. I was under the impression that the idea behind the pilot was to remove certain pieces of information in order to level the playing field somewhat. Therefore, the document could undergo an initial pass, resulting in a draft to which changes could be made, either technologically or manually, so that the resume did not identify the applicant's gender.

Either there is objectivity, or there isn't. The idea is to ensure that the process is as objective as possible. When all is said and done, I'd like to know whether this tool would make it possible to achieve near-total objectivity in specific areas.

[Patrick Borbey]

The methodology can be applied in certain circumstances. We are ready to share the methodology with departments that have gaps in representation. As you know, employment equity groups are generally overrepresented across the public service. Some departments or agencies, however, may need to improve representation in their workforce. Certainly, the methodology could be used in specific cases where increased representation is sought, in a given department or job category.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'm going to touch on another topic now. I realize this isn't necessarily the focus of the study, but it has to do with human resources.

I'd like to know whether achieving a balance between francophone and anglophone employees is a problem in the public service. Does representation pose a challenge on that level?

I'm going to make an assumption and say that unilingual English speakers have access to positions that unilingual French speakers would never have access to because they aren't functionally bilingual.

Am I mistaken?

[Patrick Borbey]

The figures actually show a slight overrepresentation of francophones in the public service. That means there isn't really any issue with representation in that regard.

Managers are the ones who decide whether to designate a position as bilingual, unilingual English, or unilingual French. They determine what their requirements are.

From our standpoint, there doesn't seem to be a problem. That said, Mr. Trottier may have something to add.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Time is up. You could probably answer that when I give it to the next guys.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Gentlemen, welcome back.

Mr. Lee, I'm sure you've heard this before: I was so excited to think that, finally, the government had delivered for us. It's the wrong Stan Lee, but at least I can tell my kids I met Stan Lee.

Mr. Borbey, what is the origin of this report? Was it felt that there was need for direction from someone? How did the report origin come about, please?

[Patrick Borbey]

I have to admit that it predates my arrival at the Public Service Commission. This was a decision that was made about a year ago to take a look at whether name-blinding could be applied in our jurisdiction. It was based on studies that have been conducted in other countries.

Carl, I know you were part of the process from the start. Do you want to add anything?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Could you explain how it came about, please? Was it felt that there was a need in terms of an inequality with certain groups, or...?

[Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance, Planning and Policy Sector, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

We are always striving to be able to create the best means to recruit individuals. We are always looking to—-

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

How did the report come about, then? If it's pre-Mr. Borbey but during your tenure, was it a directive from someone? Or was there a belief—-

[Carl Trottier]

The report came out during Mr. Borbey's tenure. It began before his tenure and came out during his tenure. What I was getting to was that if there is a doubt that there might be unconscious bias going on, I think it is our responsibility—-

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Was there a doubt expressed?

[Carl Trottier]

We didn't know. We had to do the study to be able to figure that out.