Evidence of meeting #166 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jobs.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Page  Government Lead, Talent Solutions, LinkedIn
Jane Stinson  Research Associate, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Paul Cardegna
Patrick Borbey  President, Public Service Commission
Stéphanie Poliquin  Vice-President, Services and Business Development, Public Service Commission
Jean-François Fleury  Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance, Planning and Policy Sector, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Gérard Deltell  Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC
Jean Yip  Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Colleagues, I'll call the meeting to order. We're meeting today to continue our study on the hiring process in the public service.

Because of the fact we had votes earlier, we lost about 40 minutes. To try to gain some of that time back and allow as many questions as possible by committee members, we're going to combine the two panels into one. Originally we had representatives from the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board Secretariat scheduled for 3:30 to 4:30, followed by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women and LinkedIn from 4:30 to 5:30. However, given the fact that the bells will start to ring at 5:15, slightly more than an hour from now, to try to save a little time and allow more time for questions by all of our colleagues around this table, with your concurrence, I'm going to start with the panellists who were originally scheduled to start at 4:30. We'll start with Mr. Page, followed by Madam Stinson. Then we will have opening statements by Monsieur Fleury and Monsieur Borbey. I'll get into that a little later when it's their turn to take the stage.

Seeing no disagreement with that, Mr. Page, we'll start with your opening statement. Go ahead, sir, the floor is yours.

April 1st, 2019 / 4:10 p.m.

Michael Page Government Lead, Talent Solutions, LinkedIn

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'll keep my opening remarks brief. I imagine there are varying levels of knowledge about LinkedIn here today, so I'll start with an overview.

LinkedIn is the world's largest professional social network with over 610 million members worldwide. Members use LinkedIn for a variety of reasons, but three core reasons are to get the right job, build meaningful relationships and stay well-informed. This means LinkedIn members want to know about the available jobs that fit their background and interests; stay in touch and make new connections with people professionally; and keep up to date on what is happening within their industry and profession through news, content and their network of connections. An individual's LinkedIn profile is often considered to be their professional profile of record.

Specifically in Canada, there are over 15 million members on our platform. For context, there are approximately 18 million individuals employed in the Canadian workforce. On LinkedIn in Canada, there are also 800,000 companies and 25,000 educational institutions represented, over 400,000 jobs posted currently and 50,000 skills within our skills ontology. The aggregate of this information in Canada and globally is what we refer to as the “economic graph”, or what we view as a digital representation of the economy.

As a company our vision is to create economic opportunity for every member of the global workforce. From a day-to-day perspective, this is operationalized by devoting much of our organizational efforts toward bringing together people, skills and jobs in various ways.

In Canada, beyond being the largest professional network, LinkedIn is also the largest job board and the largest skills-focused online learning platform, with over 13,000 courses comprising hundreds of thousands of videos, ranging from how to prepare for a job interview through to Google-endorsed Android developer certification courses.

Another way we strive to create economic opportunity for every member of the global workforce is through our economic graph projects. These are pro bono partnerships wherein LinkedIn partners with government and related organizations, typically for the purpose of labour market analysis. Globally we have worked with the World Bank and the World Economic Forum, among many others. Within Canada we have partnered with the City of Toronto, the Ontario Ministry of International Trade and, most recently, the LMIC or Labour Market Information Council on an analysis of skills that are most in demand in Canada.

Most related to today's context, LinkedIn is one of of the largest, if not the largest, recruitment services company in the world. Our Talent Solutions products are the largest area of LinkedIn's business. In that capacity, we work with organizations to support their ability to attract and retain the talent they need for their organization to be successful.

Understanding that the federal public service must often operate on a scale unique to itself within Canada, from a LinkedIn perspective we are very accustomed to supporting large organizations, as referenced by the fact that 100% of the Fortune 100 companies and over 95% of the Fortune 500 companies are LinkedIn Talent Solutions clients.

Based on review of previous testimony at this committee and discussions across the federal public service, I understand that some of the challenges and aspirations of the public service's hiring process include the length of the hiring process, the intense competition for talent, the need to attract millennials and youth, the desire to modernize and move beyond traditional approaches, the need to communicate external job opportunities more effectively to attract diverse talent pools and passive candidates, the use of technology to match candidates and jobs, and better labour market information for HR and hiring managers.

During the questions, I would be pleased to address how LinkedIn can assist the Government of Canada in addressing these issues.

Thank you.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

Now we'll hear from the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women.

Madame Stinson, the floor is yours.

4:15 p.m.

Jane Stinson Research Associate, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. I am not going to address the range of issues my colleague just identified, but rather one key issue in particular, the growth of precarious employment in the federal public service.

I urge this committee to deal with this issue. It's important for many reasons, and one is that it has a lot to do with equity for women and, as our research is suggesting, particularly for racialized women.

As you probably know, women make up over half of the federal public service workers, which has tended to represent better jobs for women compared with the private sector, especially for marginalized women. The growth in precarious employment is really troubling because it does start to undermine—indeed, is undermining—steps towards equity and gender equality.

I have been analyzing precarious or casualized employment in the public sector for many years. I think we're probably all familiar with the concept. It's the loss of full-time, stable employment in favour of many forms of less stable employment, usually with less pay and lacking the same benefit coverage, such as health benefits, pensions, and so on.

I want to share some findings of some recent research that CRIAW has conducted on what's been happening to different groups of women within the federal public service.

We recognize women's diversity and therefore use what's called an “intersectional lens” to try to identify and tease out differential impacts on different groups of women. Our study is from 2005 to 2014. We got special data runs from the public service employee survey. We analyzed that, and we've been publishing some of the results.

I tried to update it, but it wasn't easy to get this data, which leads me to the issue of the need for greater transparency in having information publicly available on this key employment indicator.

What we do know from our research from 2005 to 2014 is that the number of women in non-permanent positions has grown steadily in the federal public service over that period of time. As well, the number of permanent positions for all women fell by about 6%. Aboriginal women, racialized women, disabled women, and able-bodied white women have all experienced an increase in non-permanent or precarious employment during this time, some groups more than others.

Our data analysis indicated that racialized women, or those who are considered visible minorities—the category StatsCan uses—experienced the sharpest increase in precarious employment, a 21% jump from 2005 to 2014. Also, they are more likely than any other group of women to hold non-permanent positions in each of the profile years and so are being adversely affected disproportionally by policies that favour the growth of precarious employment and the loss of permanent and more stable jobs in the federal public service. Able-bodied white women also experienced a decline in permanent employment. The numbers are significant because they are the majority of women who work in the federal government.

This trend towards greater precarity is troubling, and I think you know why. The ILO, for example, has associated it with inadequate rights and protection at work and lower wages and benefits. There are also lots of studies that show there are greater health and safety risks when there is a higher level of precarity—in particular, things like the risk of bullying, more aggression in the workplace and more harassment. Historically, it's particularly disadvantaged groups who have suffered the most from that.

It's not just about workers. Clearly, that's important, but there is also evidence that growing precarity in the public sector means that services decline in quality, in availability, in reliability and in terms of other indicators.

I'm sure you've heard before that it's hard to attract and retain the best and the brightest when you can't offer permanent and stable employment. It's equally hard for those workers to try to plan their futures, especially the young workers you may be wanting to attract to the federal public service.

There needs to be a commitment to full-time employment. There need to be incentives, and there need to be requirements that more full-time, permanent jobs be created.

As it stands right now, there is an economic incentive to create precarious jobs, because those contract, term and temporary jobs are usually cheaper. There is a big financial savings for the employer, but there is a huge cost to workers, not only in their pocketbooks but in their lives. There's evidence of the impacts it has on people's lives, their families and communities.

I'm suggesting and urging that you encourage the adoption of different incentives and requirements to change this trend. The first is to have the federal government make a formal, written commitment to create full-time, permanent jobs where practicable. That's something that should be negotiated between Treasury Board and the unions. The goal should be that we want to maximize those opportunities.

Secondly, all casual, contract, temporary and part-time employees should receive the same level of benefits so there will no more financial incentive in government to get contract employees because they're cheaper, and to improve the quality of their lives as well.

Thirdly, there should be a requirement for more annual reporting on changes in employment status in this category of the public sector. It's really important. It should be there in the public highlights of the public service employee employment survey and in the Employment Equity Act and the federal contractors program. Departments should be required to monitor and publish data in a way that would allow for actual transparency about what's happening with this really important employment indicator.

Finally, the data really should be published using an intersectional analysis. The federal government and StatsCan are increasingly moving to this more fine-grained level of analysis. It's broken down by gender and by different groups within the gender, so that we can better monitor the equity implications of precarious employment.

Thank you very much.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I'm just going to take a moment to consult with my clerk. We're waiting for some documents to be sent over to the committee.

I'll suspend for about two minutes, please.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Colleagues, the difficulty we are having here is the fact that we have Mr. Borbey's opening statement and comments in both official languages, but not Monsieur Fleury's. Oh, we have them now. We'll be distributing those as I speak.

Colleagues, to save a little time I'm going to suggest a process that we have used recently, namely, that the speaking notes presented by both Monsieur Fleury and Monsieur Borbey be considered and taken as read and appended to the evidence of today's meeting. What that will do, then, is allow more time for questions.

The opening comments, which you are going to be receiving momentarily, will be in your possession.

[See appendix—Remarks by Patrick Borbey]

[See appendix—Remarks by Jean-François Fleury]

Madame Mendès.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

My question is only about Professor Stinson's notes. Have they been translated? Can we have them?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

No. The reason we had Madam Stinson and Mr. Page read their opening statements is so that the translation—

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Oh no, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if we can have a copy, because I don't....

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Are there no copies of either Mr. Page's or Madame Stinson's statements?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

You received them, but they've not been translated. Is that it?

4:20 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Paul Cardegna

The copies that we received from Ms. Stinson and Mr. Page were unilingual and given to the interpreters only. We didn't receive them in time to have them translated to be able to distribute them to the committee.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

They have been read into the record and hopefully that will suffice for now.

Mr. Borbey and Monsieur Fleury have both agreed that they will dispense with their opening comments and we will, as I said, append them to the evidence of today's meeting, which will allow us to go directly into questions.

We will start a seven-minute intervention by Mr. Peterson.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Fleury and Mr. Borbey allowing us to read their comments into the record so I can jump right in here.

I'm going to start with Mr. Page from LinkedIn. First of all, thank you for being with us.

I take it that your organization can probably offer a tremendous amount of advice to the federal government when it comes to hiring and connecting employees with employers, and the vast amount of data that you would have in this regard.

Is there any formal relationship right now between you and the federal government that would make that an easy process?

4:25 p.m.

Government Lead, Talent Solutions, LinkedIn

Michael Page

We work with a handful of departments directly for varying degrees and capacities of recruitment. There is no type of centralized relationship that would easily facilitate that at this point in time.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Would you see that as worthwhile pursuing?

4:25 p.m.

Government Lead, Talent Solutions, LinkedIn

Michael Page

Yes, absolutely. To be honest, we get feedback on that frequently from the individual departments. They're asking for a centralized relationship to help make it easier for them to partner with us as well, so there's more formality and scale to that relationship.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Borbey, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm sure you have some—

4:25 p.m.

Patrick Borbey President, Public Service Commission

Mr. Page won't mind my revealing this, but I did talk about our request for information process for the transformation of our GC jobs recruitment platform that we launched back in the fall. We're happy that LinkedIn was one of the companies that responded to this request for information. We've had presentations by LinkedIn on what it could potentially offer as a future solution. We're not at the procurement stage yet, but we have developed that relationship with LinkedIn, so that may well be something that we'll deepen in the future—but, of course, we have to respect procurement processes.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Of course.

You've been before us many times, Mr. Borbey, and it's always a pleasure to have you. Some of the topics of our previous conversations dealt with the platforms, how we get the word out there that the federal government is hiring and how you intake that information in a way that makes the processing of that information as efficient as possible—

4:25 p.m.

President, Public Service Commission

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON

—and it seems to me there might be a platform that already exists. There are probably other platforms. Mr. Page is with us today but....

4:25 p.m.

President, Public Service Commission

Patrick Borbey

I would distinguish between the job board, similar to what LinkedIn provides, versus a full solution related to the recruitment system. The job board can be used right now by departments and agencies. In fact, we encourage it. If it increases the reach of a job advertisement, then that's great. There are no barriers for departments to be able to used LinkedIn and some of the other social media sites right now.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON

You pre-empted the question I was going to ask.

Can any manager right now post on LinkedIn, if they see fit?

4:25 p.m.

President, Public Service Commission

Patrick Borbey

Yes, but the caveat is that they also have to post on GC jobs because that is the platform with the mandate from the Government of Canada to ensure that all Canadians have access to those opportunities.