MAF 2022 to 2023 People Management Methodology

Rationale

The public service needs to be diverse to meet the need of our employees and all Canadians. Representativeness is a key element of this year’s strategic theme for diversity and inclusion. As part of the Employment Equity Act, Deputy Minister Commitments and the Clerk’s Call to Action, departments are expected to develop plans, using numeric hiring goals, that will allow them to achieve full representation within a reasonable timeframe.

The Clerk’s Call to Action included a focus on recruiting highly qualified candidates from Indigenous communities and Black and other racialized communities from across all regions of Canada.

As stated in the 2021/2022 Deputy Minister Commitments on Diversity and Inclusion: “Targets play an important role in driving organizations to achieve measurable change in advancing diversity and inclusion objectives. As a continuous goal, departments must consider their Workforce Availability statistics (WFA) as the floor and not the ceiling with regards to diversity targets.

Deputies will be required to update the staffing plan demonstrating the rate of hiring and promotions of individuals at the executive and non-executive levels, who self-identify in at least one of the EE groups, which aims to close the gap within the next three years, with demonstrable and steady progress made annually.”

Further, changes to the definition of “Persons with Disabilities” and amendments to the Public Service Employment Act related to the eligibility of permanent residents for public service jobs, will increase Workforce Availability benchmarks. Departments will need to have goals in their HR plans to ensure they can have a representative workforce, factoring in these changes.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Target: High

As per the Employment Equity Act, departments are expected to demonstrate that they have set hiring goals for the four equity groups where they have underrepresentation as a minimum. Doing so demonstrates tangible action towards eliminating employment equity gaps as outlined under the Employment Equity Act (10 (1 d-e) and 10(2-3)).

As per this question, departments are expected to demonstrate that they have hiring goals established in their HR, Employment Equity or Staffing plans that support the reduction and eventual elimination of representation gaps for all four EE groups. Departments are also encouraged to demonstrate that they have conducted forward thinking for the eventual inclusion of Black employees in the planning of their staffing. This may be assessed in future rounds of MAF.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

As of March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

1. Departments receive 1 point for each of the four designated groups where they meet the Workforce Availability (up to four points)
2. Departments receive 1 point for each of the four groups that are underrepresented and who have a numeric hiring goal in their HR/Staffing/Employment Equity plans that will lead to progress in eliminating or reducing their representation gaps
3. For Black employees, departments may show forward thinking and established goals as encouraged in the Clerk’s Call to Action. However, given that there is no WFA for this sub-group of Visible Minorities, points will not be allocated for Black Employees in this year’s MAF.

To receive points, departments need to be representative or demonstrate hiring goals for the following groups:

1. Women
2. Persons with Disabilities
3. Indigenous Peoples
4. Visible Minorities

Based on the scoring for this question, departments may expect the following results:

1. 4 points: High degree
2. 3 points: Moderate degree
3. 1-2 points: Low degree
4. 0 points: None

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Using the provided template, for each of the four designated groups where there is underrepresentation a hiring goal must be demonstrated in the departmental planning (e.g., HR, Employment Equity and/or Staffing Plan) or other formal documents (e.g. PowerPoint presentation) that has been presented to, and approved by senior management.

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence is required to demonstrate hiring goals were established for each group where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

Rationale

As per the Clerk’s Call to Action “Our leadership across the Public Service must be more diverse.” Many EE groups are underrepresented at senior management levels. Representativeness is a key element of this year’s strategic theme for diversity and inclusion. In support of the Employment Equity Act, Deputy Minister Commitments, and the Clerk’s Call to Action departments are expected to develop plans, using numeric hiring goals, that will allow them to appoint underrepresented group members to the Executive Group and achieve full representation within a reasonable timeframe.

The Clerk’s Call to Action included a focus on appointing Indigenous and Black employees to and within the Executive Group through career development and talent management.

As stated in the 2021/2022 Deputy Minister Commitments on Diversity and Inclusion: “Targets play an important role in driving organizations to achieve measurable change in advancing diversity and inclusion objectives. As a continuous goal, departments must consider their Workforce Availability statistics as the floor and not the ceiling with regards to diversity targets. Deputies will be required to update the staffing plan demonstrating the rate of hiring and promotions of individuals at the executive and non-executive levels, who self-identify in at least one of the EE groups, which aims to close the gap within the next 3 years, with demonstrable and steady progress made annually.”

The results of the MAF assessment will further illustrate for Deputy Heads how they need to update their staffing plans, particularly to address representativeness at senior leadership levels.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Target: High

As per the Clerk’s Call to Action and the 2021/2022 Deputy Minister Commitments on Diversity and Inclusion, hiring goals are to be established and appointments made for underrepresented group members to the Executive Group. Departments are expected to demonstrate that they have hiring goals for the four equity groups at Executive levels. Doing so demonstrates tangible action towards eliminating employment equity gaps as outlined under the Employment Equity Act (10 (1 d-e) and 10(2-3)).

As per this question, departments are expected to demonstrate that they have hiring goals established for EX (and where applicable LC) in their HR, Employment Equity or Staffing plans that support the reduction and eventual elimination of representation gaps for all four EE groups. Departments are also encouraged to demonstrate that they have conducted forward thinking in their planning for staffing.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

As of March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

• Departments receive 1 point for each of the four designated groups where they meet the Workforce Availability at the Executive level (up to four points).
• Departments receive 1 point for each of the four groups that are underrepresented at the Executive level and for which they have a numeric hiring goal in their HR/Staffing/Employment Equity plans that will lead to progress in eliminating or reducing their representation gaps at the Executive level.
• For Black employees, departments may show forward thinking and established goals as encouraged in the Clerk’s Call to Action. However, given that there is no WFA for this sub-group of Visible Minorities, points will not be allocated for Black Employees in this year’s MAF.

To receive points, departments need to be representative or demonstrate hiring goals for the following groups:

1. Women
2. Persons with Disabilities
3. Indigenous Peoples
4. Visible Minorities

Based on the scoring for this question, departments may expect the following results:

1. 4 points: High degree
2. 3 points: Moderate degree
3. 1-2 points: Low degree
4. 0 point: None

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

For each of the four designated groups where there is underrepresentation at the Executive level a hiring goal must be demonstrated in the departmental planning (e.g., HR, Employment Equity and/or Staffing Plan) or other formal document (e.g., PowerPoint presentation) that has been presented to, and approved by senior management.

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence is required to demonstrate hiring goals were established for each group where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

Rationale

Inclusion is the core of achieving the strategic theme of creating and leveraging a diverse public service. Inclusion refers to taking proactive measures to create a workplace that is fair, equitable, supportive, welcoming and respectful of all. It recognizes, values and leverages differences in identities, abilities, backgrounds, cultures, skills, experiences, and perspectives that support and reinforce Canada’s evolving human rights framework.

From the Clerk’s Call to Action, building a diverse, equitable and inclusive public service is both an obligation and an opportunity we all share. We must advance this objective together, acting both individually and collectively, and recognizing that our progress will rely on amplifying the voices of those within our organizations to help lead the way. Engaging in dialogue and including voices from diverse backgrounds is essential in the identification of systemic racism, discrimination and barriers to inclusion, and the design and implementation of actions to address them. Also key to inclusion is fostering and developing inclusive leadership skills and establishing a sense of belonging and trust for all public servants.

The 2021/2022 Deputy Minister Commitments on Diversity and Inclusion outlines expectations and indicators for how our most senior departmental leaders can create change and establish a culture of inclusiveness that values diversity and will combat racism and address systemic barriers.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Expected Results

Overall, departments are expected to demonstrate a high degree of the following:

• They are engaging in dialogue and establishing a culture of inclusiveness that values diversity and will combat racism and address systemic barriers
• They take measures to increase the representation of Black, other racialized and Indigenous People as well as persons with disabilities within all levels of the organization
• They are ensuring that internal and external policies and programs are inclusive and free of systemic racism and barriers

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Agencies

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

To receive points, departments must provide supporting document to demonstrate that the following actions have been taken:

1. Senior Management continues to create an inclusive work environment for employment equity designated group members* by taking actions beyond communicating their support (2 points)
2. Collaboration with employee networks and/or bargaining agents on planning and developing solutions (2 points)
3. Development and implementation of initiatives to remove barriers to inclusion for equity-seeking groups (1 point)
4. Monitoring inclusion results (must include a mechanism for employee feedback, e.g., analysis of previous PSES results) (1 point)
5. Mentorship, sponsorship and/or leadership development opportunities offered specifically to one of more of the 4 EE groups and/or other equity seeking groups (1 point)
6. None of the above (0 points)

Total of 7 points

Based on the department’s responses, it may expect one of the following results:

1. 6-7 points: High degree of support for inclusion
2. 4- 5 points: Moderate degree of support for inclusion
3. 0-3 points: Low degree of support for inclusion

* Please note that while answer options a) and c) appear to overlap, they are aimed at two separate groups of employees. Option a) is seeking actions for designated group members (women, Indigenous peoples, Persons with Disabilities and Visible Minorities, as per the Employment Equity Act). Answer option c) is seeking initiatives for “equity-seeking groups”.

According to the PSEA, "equity-seeking group means a group of persons who are disadvantaged on the basis of one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act." While this definition technically does include the designated group members under the EEA, common usage in the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion community sees the “equity-seeking groups” as those not covered under the EEA.

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Please provide one piece of evidence (via template), with the following embedded.

For option a) please provide a DM attestation as to which, if any, of the activities listed in Annex A have been undertaken

For option b) please provide evidence such as meeting notes, minutes or other documents, showing collaboration with networks and bargaining agents.

For option c) please provide initiative documents such as plans, descriptions, presentations.

For option d) please provide documents that elaborate on the monitoring and feedback mechanisms. This could include analysis of PSES results, executive summary of an Employment Systems Review, etc.

For option e) please provide documents such as participation call out letters, presentations describing the mentorship, sponsorship or leadership development programs, participant guides, etc.

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence demonstrating where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template is required.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

2021-2022 DM Commitments on Diversity and Inclusion for MAF Question 3

Annex B (if applicable)

Rationale

Prevention of workplace harassment and violence is a primary goal of the new Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations pursuant to the Canada Labour Code (CLC), Part II. The TBS Policy on People Management requires deputy heads to ensure measures are in place to prevent and address all forms of workplace harassment and violence, in accordance with the CLC.

This focus on prevention was part of the Executive Corporate Commitments across the Public Service in 2021-2022 and aligns with a specific requirement in the mandate letter for the President of the Treasury Board. Ensuring a safe and respectful workplace is a crucial element for the Future of Work.

Following the baseline assessment of departmental plans in the 2021-2022 MAF, the identification of departmental risk factors through a workplace assessment is a foundational step to prevent violence and harassment in workplaces. Identified risks form a key element of the departmental policy and are an essential consideration in the selection of training and other preventive measures that will be implemented in the organization. The new Regulations require a workplace assessment to be done and to be reviewed and updated at a minimum every 3 years.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Reference to requirements in the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations sections 5-9

TBS Directive on the Prevention and Resolution of Workplace Harassment and Violence

3.1 The objectives of this directive are as follows:

3.1.1 To prevent occurrences of workplace harassment and violence by providing an integrated healthy, safe and respectful workplace that is free from all forms of harassment and violence; and

3.1.2 To ensure that organizations of the core public administration respond appropriately and without delay to a notice of an occurrence of harassment or violence, in compliance with the Canada Labour Code, Part II, and the WPHVP Regulations.

Policy on People Management

4.1 Deputy heads are responsible for the following:

Governance

4.1.2 Designating one or more senior officials to whom responsibility is assigned or authority is delegated with regard to:

4.1.2.1 Prevention and resolution of workplace harassment and violence;

Healthy and safe workplace and workforce

4.1.33 Safeguarding the health and safety of their workforce and workplace, including that:

4.1.33.5 Measures are in place to prevent and address all forms of workplace harassment and violence, in accordance with the Canada Labour Code, Part II;

Government-wide Corporate Priorities for 21-22 - Supporting Physical and Psychological Health and Safety

For 2021-22, continue building and sustaining healthy, resilient workplaces by supporting the physical and psychological health and safety of your employees, including the prevention and resolution of harassment and discrimination.

Expected Results

Target: Fully meets expectations

Departments are expected to demonstrate that they have identified a comprehensive set of risk factors and developed corresponding preventative measures based on a rigorous workplace assessment. For the purposes of this question, departments are expected to demonstration that risk and hazards were jointly identified, and mitigations developed.

This indicator will provide organizations with an indication of their progress in implementing the new regulations which came into force January 1^st, 2021 aimed at preventing workplace harassment and violence as well as identifying gaps and good practices in the departmental health and safety management system.

This information will also provide TBS with an overview of implementation in organizations assessed under the MAF and an opportunity to share best practices across the public service.

Assessed Organizations

LDA – Core Public Administration

Period of Assessment

June 2020 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

The department will be assessed on efforts that demonstrate that:

• Efforts were jointly carried out with applicable partner: 1 point
• Risk factors identified: 2 points
  • Comprehensive list of risk identified factors linked to section 8 of the Regulations: 2 points
  • Partial or in-progress risks identified: 1 point
  • No risks identified: 0 points
• Preventative measures linked to the risk factors identified: 3 points
  • Implementation plan is complete and preventative measures linked to the risk factors are identified, developed and implemented: 3 points
  • Implementation plan is in progress and preventative measures are mostly linked to risk factors identified: 2 points
  • No implementation plan but preventative measures are being developed linked to risk factors: 1 point
  • No implementation plan or preventative measures developed: 0 points

Total of 6 points

Based on the department’s responses, it will receive one of the following results:

• 6 points: Fully meets expectations
• 4-5 points: Significant progress
• 2-3 points: Progressing towards expectations
• 0-1 points: Limited or no progress

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Please provide a maximum of three pieces of evidence (e.g., narrative description, excerpt from strategy or action plan, tools used in assessment to identify the risk factors) for each “yes” response.

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence demonstrating where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template is required.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

To answer:

• TBS to answer
• Department or Agency to answer
• Both TBS and Department or Agency to answer

Rationale

The Canada Labour Code (CLC), Part II, as well as Part XIX of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (effective since November 2005) require employers to establish a Hazard Prevention Program (HPP) and evaluate the overall effectiveness of their prevention program and revise it if necessary (19.7 COHSR):

1. (a) at least every three years;
2. (b) whenever there is a change in conditions in respect of the hazards; and
3. (c) whenever new hazard information in respect of a hazard in the work place becomes available to the employer.

The TBS Policy on People Management requires deputy heads to create safe and healthy workplaces by establishing an occupational health and safety policy and program compliant with the requirements of the CLC. Continuing efforts to build and sustain healthy, resilient workplaces by supporting the physical and psychological health and safety of your employees was also a public service wide corporate priority for 21-22.

Given the changes that have occurred in workplaces over the last few years, it is essential for organizations to evaluate the effectiveness of their Hazard Prevention Program as a foundation for the future of work contingencies and strategies being developed. This will ensure that the health implications of hybrid and other workplace conditions are considered.

To achieve this, the organization must have proper hazard identification methodology to identify and address new or modified hazards that may lead to an incident/injury and preventative procedures in place, such as providing education and information to employees. The information will provide organizations with an opportunity to plan for a healthy and safe return to the workplace, identify gaps in the health and safety management system and share best practices across the public service. Furthermore, this information will help the TBS-ECLR-OHS in supporting organizations in meeting their obligations.

As a concrete example, the constantly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and occupational and public health guidance illustrated how critical it is for departments to have a hazard prevention program up-to-date and determine appropriate preventive practices adapted to the changing workplace and approach to activities.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (19.7 to 19.8)

TBS Policy on People Management

3.2 The expected results of this policy are as follows:

3.2.2 The work environment is healthy, safe, accessible, respectful, fair, and modern;

4.1 Deputy heads are responsible for the following:

Healthy and safe workplace and workforce

4.1.33 Safeguarding the health and safety of their workforce and workplace, including that:

4.1.33.4 An occupational health and safety policy and program (compliant with the requirements of the Canada Labour Code) are established in consultation with the Policy Health and Safety Committee;

Government-wide Corporate Priorities for 21-22 - Supporting Physical and Psychological Health and Safety

For 2021-22, continue building and sustaining healthy, resilient workplaces by supporting the physical and psychological health and safety of your employees, including the prevention and resolution of harassment and discrimination.

Expected Results

Departments are expected to demonstrate that they have completed a comprehensive hazard prevention program evaluation as a foundation for the development of their hybrid work models and procedures.

Since deputy ministers are responsible for the OHS of their employees, we want to ensure that they can meet these requirements when identifying and assessing risks (the first step in developing a prevention program), given that the obligation to set up a risk prevention program has been in place since November 2005.

The results will allow TBS to support organizations in their OHS prevention, be aware of good practices, as well as support compliance.

Assessed Organizations

LDA – Core Public Administration

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

• Sufficiently comprehensive program evaluation completed, including consideration of most* elements of 19.7(2) COHRS, and program evaluation report provided as evidence (3 points)
• Program evaluation is in progress and evidence that some** elements (from 19.7(2) COHRS) have been analyzed or a completed program evaluation that is not comprehensive (2 points)
• Evaluation plan is in place or being developed to conduct a program evaluation or a completed program evaluation that does not cover the regulatory requirements (1 point)
• No program evaluation or a plan for one is in place (0 points)

*most means that you have >5 elements of 19.7(2) COHRS
**some means that you have >1 elements from 19.7(2) COHRS but less than 5

• 3 points: Completed comprehensive program evaluation
• 2 points: Progressing - Program evaluation is underway, and progress is being made to complete, or a completed program evaluation that is not comprehensive.
• 1 point: Initiating - There is a plan or planning to do a program evaluation or a completed program evaluation that does not cover the regulatory requirements.
• 0 points: No planning or progress toward a program evaluation

Total of 3 points

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence demonstrating where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template is required.

Please provide a maximum of three pieces of evidence (e.g., Copy of your evaluation report, relevant part(s) of your hazard prevention program that have been reviewed, narrative description, excerpt from strategy or action plan, tools used in assessment).

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

Rationale

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector require chief executives (deputy heads) to take efforts to support a workplace that fosters an ethical culture and promotes a positive environment for the disclosure of wrongdoing. Values and Ethics is also a key requirement in the Policy on People Management to ensure that key risks are identified and mitigated and that values are upheld in attracting, developing and retaining a high-performing and diverse workforce. Having a values-based and ethical work environment contributes to the well-being and engagement of the public service workforce. Public integrity is also integral to a resilient response as organizations move forward to the future of work. As part of this, raising awareness of integrity standards will ensure that all staff continue to abide by the rules and uphold public sector values to a high standard.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Expected Results

Departments are expected to demonstrate a highly comprehensive approach to activities fostering a culture of values and ethics in the organization, where employees may report cases of serious wrongdoing without fear of reprisals.

As these actions have been communicated in the past to departments, as part of this question, departments are expected to demonstrate activities in support of all assessed areas.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

To receive points, departments must provide supporting document to demonstrate that the following actions have been taken:

1. Established or reviewed a centre of expertise for values and ethics or integrity in the past five years (1 point)
2. Promoted/communicated to employees, on an annual basis, over the last fiscal year (Total of 1 point)
   • Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (0.33 of a point)
   • Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (0.33 of a point)
   • Organization Code of Conduct (0.33 of a point)
3. Employees have taken training on (Total of 1 point)
   • Ethical decision-making (0.20 of a point)
   • Ethical leadership (0.20 of a point)
   • Respect or civility in the workplace (0.20 of a point)
   • Conflict of interest and/or conflict of duties (0.20 of a point)
   • Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (0.20 of a point)
4. Designated a Senior Official for Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Duties (Not applicable to separate agencies) (1 point)
5. Designated a Values and Ethics or Integrity Champion in the past five years (1 point)
6. Conducted an internal audit of values and ethics in the organization in the past five years (1 point)
7. Conducted an ethical risk assessment in the organization in the past five years (1 point)
8. None of the above (0 points)
   • Departments are expected to demonstrate all of the listed actions above to receive full points.
   • Each action is worth 1 point
   • Sub actions are broken down into percentages that add up to 1 point (i.e., action #2 – promoted/communicated to employees - has 3 sub actions being evaluated, each of those sub actions are worth approx. 33%)

Total of 7 points

Based on departmental responses, it may expect one of the following results:

• 7 points: Highly comprehensive
• 4-6 points: Moderately comprehensive
• 1-3 points: Minimally comprehensive
• 0 points: Does not meet expectations

For CFIA and NRC only: Total of 6 points

• 6 points: Highly comprehensive
• 4-5 points: Moderately comprehensive
• 1-3 points: Minimally comprehensive
• 0 points: Does not meet expectations

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence demonstrating where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template is required.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

To answer:

• TBS to answer
• Department or Agency to answer
• Both TBS and Department or Agency to answer

Rationale

Since 2016, the Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Strategy (the Strategy) has outlined deputy heads’ responsibility to manage psychological health and safety, and this was recently identified as a priority in the 21-22 Executive Corporate Commitments. Since the Strategy was released, the Canada Labour Code, Part II was updated to explicitly include the prevention of psychological injuries and illnesses, making the implementation of the Strategy a means for achieving compliance. The Strategy requires that organizations develop action plans to address nine organization-specific objectives. The mental health and wellness of public servants is vital to each organization’s success now and in the future of work. Workplace conditions that support psychological health and safety generate higher levels of engagement and increase productivity.

Assessing the degree of implementation of actions with respect to the nine objectives is a natural progression from the 21-22 MAF indicator, which sought to assess the status and comprehensiveness of organizations’ plans and collected only initial information regarding implementation.

Assessing this healthy workplace indicator will provide departments with insights on gaps and areas of success with respect to implementing the Strategy. It will help deputy heads to identify strategic objectives requiring additional attention, and subsequent supporting actions needed to close gaps and work towards building healthy, respectful, and supportive work environments that strengthen the public service. Results will provide TBS with information about strategic areas requiring additional support and guidance to help organizations align with the Strategy and implement their mental health action plan and/or strategy.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Strategy (with three goals and nine organizational objectives)

Government-wide Corporate Priorities for 21-22 - Supporting Physical and Psychological Health and Safety

For 2021-22, continue building and sustaining healthy, resilient workplaces by supporting the physical and psychological health and safety of your employees, including the prevention and resolution of harassment and discrimination.

Canada Labour Code, Part II

TBS Policy on People Management

3.2 The expected results of this policy are as follows:

3.2.2 The work environment is healthy, safe, accessible, respectful, fair, and modern.

4.1 Deputy heads are responsible for the following:

Healthy and safe workplace and workforce

4.1.33 Safeguarding the health and safety of their workforce and workplace

Expected Results

With the release of the Strategy having taken place in 2016, departments are expected to be progressing towards the implementation of actions to address all nine of its organization-specific objectives and to have achieved such implementation at least to a moderate extent. Failing to address the nine objectives can lead to health and safety risks as well as decreased engagement, productivity and, ultimately, compromised ability for the organization to fulfill its mandate.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Assessment Framework 

Each objective is weighted equally and so the maximum score a department can get is 9 points (maximum 1 point for each objective if all the actions have been completed). Points will be calculated automatically to one decimal point in the template.

Implementation	Points
No actions have been taken for an objective	0 points
Some actions for an objective have been taken	Partial points (each action under an objective is equally valued, i.e., if there are 4 actions for an objective and only 1 is being done, the point value for that objective is 0.5)
All actions for an objective have been taken	1 point

Calculation method

Result	Description
None	0 points
Low extent	> 0 – < 4 points
Moderate extent (Expected result)	4 – < 7 points
High extent	7 – < 9 points
Full extent	9 points

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data Collection Method

Departments will be required to fill out a template (Annex B); no other evidence is required.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) for Question 7

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

Rationale

Following the results of an exploratory survey on official languages among federal government employees in Canada called Linguistic (in)security at work and conducted with 11,000 public servants located in bilingual regions for language-of-work purposes, the Commissioner of Official Languages reported that 44% of Francophone respondents and 39% of Anglophone respondents are not comfortable using French at work.

A work environment conducive to the effective use of both official languages respects the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice. Creating a work environment that contributes to the effective use of both official languages helps to maintain a truly bilingual workplace, whether it be in an in-person, virtual or in a hybrid context, to ensure that public servants are comfortable using the official language of their choice.

The indicators will confirm compliance to requirements 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Policy on Official Languages, 6.3.1, 6.3.3 and 6.6 of the Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services, and 6.1.3 and 6.1.6 of the Directive on Official Languages for People Management.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Expected Results

Departments are expected to demonstrate a high level of effort to ensure that employees’ language-of-work rights are respected, particularly in newer hybrid and other future of work scenarios. For the purposes of this question, departments are expected to demonstrate actions in three or more areas.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

To receive points, departments must provide supporting documents to demonstrate that the following actions have been taken:

1. Corporate content issued from bilingual regions for the purpose of language of work on the Intranet is posted simultaneously in both official languages
2. In bilingual regions, internal working meetings are held in both official languages
3. Department-wide or agency-wide meetings are held in both official languages
4. Supporting documentation for internal and department-wide or agency-wide meetings are provided simultaneously in both English and French to employees from bilingual regions.
5. No measures were taken.

Each action is worth 1 point. Departments are expected to demonstrate all the listed actions (below) to receive full points.

Based on the department’s responses, it will receive one of the following results:

• High extent – 3 to 4 points
• Moderate extent – 2 points
• Low extent – 1 point
• No support demonstrated – 0 points

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data Collection Method

Departments to answer in the portal by completing and submitting the supporting template. Inclusion of evidence demonstrating where the departments indicate “Yes” or ☑ on the template is required.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

To answer:

• PSC to answer
• Department or Agency to answer
• Both TBS and Department or Agency to answer

Rationale

The mandate letter to the President of the Treasury Board, dated December 16, 2021, reiterates the following commitment:

« Continuing to work with the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, as Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, to reduce the time it takes to hire new public servants. »

The commitment to reduce the time to staff for external processes has been in effect since the mandate letter of December 13, 2019.

Since the calculation method of data for the external process is not available, a correlation can still be made with the time to staff for internal processes because the steps in the appointment process are approximately the same, except for recourse (e.g., screening, assessment, issuance of letters of offer, etc.).

It is in the interest of the Public Service to recruit the best candidates in a timely manner. Accordingly, the indicator on the time to staff will enable the PSC to establish the progression of organizations with respect to the efficiency and the agility of the staffing system and eventually be able to provide support to organizations. As we move toward the future of work, the market for talent is increasingly fast-paced and competitive. Ensuring that HR processes are streamlined is important to ensuring that staffing processes are agile and take less time so that the Public Service does not miss opportunities to bringing the needed talent into the enterprise.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Expected Results

Reduction of time to staff.

Assessed Organizations

LDA – Core Public Administration

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

The middle value of the number of calendar days between the date when the poster was advertised and when the Notification of an appointment or proposed Appointment (only the first appointment from an internal advertised appointment process is calculated in the time to staff) was posted across selection processes.

In order to calculate the median, the data (number of calendar days for each internal selection process) must first be ranked in ascending order and then the middle value selected.

Median = the middle value of a set of ordered data.

Note: Calculation includes appointments from within the Public Service that fall under the Public Service Employment Act.

Type of appointment: Indeterminate appointments only.

Sample: To be assessed on time to staff, organizations must have completed at least 20 internal advertised appointment processes, regardless the size of the organization.

We will compare data sets from responding organizations for April 2021 to March 2022 against the PS-wide median for the same period.

We will also compare data sets from the responding organizations for April 2020 to March 2021 period against April 2021 - March 2022 period. This will provide for a progress report for their own organization.

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide) - PSC to provide median data PS-wide and for each responding organization.

Data Collection Method

N/A

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

To answer:

• TBS to answer
• Department or Agency to answer
• Both TBS and Department or Agency to answer

Rationale

The Government of Canada has a commitment to hire 5000 net-new employees with disabilities by 2025. Every department and agency must support this commitment to achieve employment equity, according to its current representation level and size of its workforce. When an organization achieves excellent progress towards reaching its individual target number of net new hires of persons with disabilities, it will show the concrete actions it is taking to remove barriers in the workplace and to lead by example in accessibility and inclusion, as per the requirements of the Accessible Canada Act, the direction in the Clerk’s Call to Action on Anti-racism, equity and inclusion, and the Accessibility Strategy for the Public Service of Canada.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Employment: Accessibility Strategy for the Public Service of Canada - Canada.ca

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Departments and agencies have made excellent progress towards meeting their target number (e.g., within 10%) of net new hires of persons with disabilities.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022

Calculation Method

Excellent (Departments and agencies have consistently hired persons with disabilities and are within 10% of reaching their target number of net new hires)

Neutral (Departments and agencies have hired some persons with disabilities, and are within 10-50% of reaching their target number of net new hires)

Poor (Departments and agencies have hired few or no persons with disabilities, and are within 50-100% of achieving their target)

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data collection Method

The Public Service Commission will provide the required data.

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A (if applicable)

Annex B (if applicable)

To answer:

• TBS to answer
• Department or Agency to answer
• Both TBS and Department or Agency to answer

Rationale

When consulted, employees with disabilities consistently point to the accommodation process as a point of friction when joining an organization or moving to a new position. The centralization of accommodation requests, the availability of information and support and data collection have all been identified as best practices. The goal of this question is to get a better understanding of the efforts currently underway in the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to improve the effectiveness of the accommodation process in order to prevent and eliminate barriers for all employees. When an organization achieves good progress towards implementing best practices in workplace accommodation, they will show the definitive actions they are taking to improve the workplace experience for employees with a disability, create an accessibility confident organization, and lead by example in accessibility and inclusion, as per the requirements of the Accessible Canada Act and the Accessibility Strategy for the Public Service of Canada.

Category

1. Policy Compliance
2. Performance
3. Baseline

Note: All baseline questions will be included in MAF reporting products.

Expected Results

Departments and agencies have made good progress towards implementing best practices on workplace accommodation.

Assessed Organizations

• LDA – Core Public Administration
• LDA – Separate Employers

Period of Assessment

April 1, 2022 to February 21, 2023

Calculation Method

Please select all the options that apply (in the attached template)

• Funding for workplace accommodations has been centralized (e.g., funding allocated at the corporate level and does not come from a manager’s operating budget)
• Resources have been identified to support employees and managers during the accommodation process (e.g., third party facilitators with accessibility knowledge; accessibility training delivered to managers and service enablers such as IT professionals and procurement specialists)
• Departments and agencies are actively leveraging data on workplace accommodations to monitor the accommodation process and improve service standards (e.g., reduced waiting times for receiving workplace adjustment needs; improved employee satisfaction of workplace accommodation process).
• Other changes are being implemented to improve employee experiences with workplace accommodations. Please specify (e.g., integrating the GC Workplace Accessibility Passport into workplace accommodation processes).
• None of the above

Good progress: 3 or more are selected

Moderate progress: 2 are selected

Minimal progress: One item is selected

No progress: No actions taken

Evidence Requirements

• Department to provide evidence
• TBS to provide evidence
• Other evidence to be considered (please provide)

Data collection Method

Departments to answer. Inclusion of evidence for every action taken to improve the delivery of workplace accommodations to persons with disabilities.

Evidence: The attached template must be completed. Additionally, please include an explanation for each of the categories chosen. In your explanation, please provide a description of the approach used for each category, and the year of implementation. You can provide up to one supporting document per category, but providing such evidence is not mandatory.

Document Limit: 5 documents

Government-wide Comparison

• Yes the results of the indicator will be used for comparison across departments
• No (please provide an explanation)

Year-Over-Year Analysis

• Yes
• No

Departmental Results Framework (DRF) (TBS use only)

Is this indicator used in the TBS DRF?

• Yes
• No

Annex A

Annex B (if applicable)