Many Voices One Mind: a pathway to reconciliation – 2020-21 Departmental Progress Scorecard summary report

On this page

• Message from Gina Wilson, Deputy Minister Champion for Federal Indigenous Employees
• The Demographics
  • The Overall Indigenous Population
  • The Overall Indigenous Population in the Core Public Service
  • Workforce Availability
• Results by Many Voices One Mind Pillars
  • Pillar 1: Recruitment and Retention
  • Pillar 2: Cultural Competency
  • Pillar 3: Training and Development
  • Pillar 4: Talent Management
  • Pillar 5: Creating Safe Spaces
  • Overall Questions
• Conclusion and Overall Recommendations
• Next Steps
• Annex A: Questions that can be used for discussions in sharing circles or panel discussions

List of acronyms and abbreviations

CPA

Core Public Administration = All organizations under Schedule I and Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act (FAA)

FPS

Federal Public Service = Core Public Administration + Separate Agencies

MVOM

Many Voices One Mind

WFA

Workforce Availability

EE

Employment Equity

PSES

Public Service Employee Survey

PMA

Performance Management Agreements

IEN

Indigenous Employee Network

KCII

The Knowledge Circle for Indigenous Inclusion

Message from Gina Wilson, Deputy Minister Champion for Federal Indigenous Employees

In 2017, the Many Voices One Mind (MVOM) Report and Action Plan were issued. The MVOM Report and supporting Action Plan is a whole-of-government strategy intended to address the barriers encountered by Indigenous Peoples seeking a position or already working in the public service. The strategy also sought to influence public service culture and encourage behaviours that foster an environment where Indigenous employees are welcomed, respected and supported in their career with the public service. The MVOM Report and supporting Action Plan are based on five pillars:

1. Recruitment and Retention
2. Cultural Competency
3. Training and Development
4. Talent Management
5. Creating a Safe Space

This summary report, the third such report, is a scorecard of how the federal public service is progressing with each of the five MVOM pillars. For this exercise, which covers fiscal year 2020-2021, a questionnaire more detailed than the previous years’ was developed with the help of a working group. Invitations were sent to all organizations with fifty or more employees that are under Schedules I and IV of the Financial Administration Act (FAA), as well as seven organizations under Schedule V of the FAA that have filled out the questionnaire in the past. A total of forty-nine organizations (out of the sixty-seven invited) took the time to fill out the questionnaire and return it to us, including an eighth organization under Schedule V that asked if they could also participate. I would like to sincerely thank those organizations for taking the time to complete the questionnaire. We know how labour-intensive it was.

Completed questionnaires were received up to early October 2022, and we then shared some preliminary data with stakeholder groups from October to December 2022. This gave stakeholders an opportunity to examine the key issues and provide feedback on what recommendations they wished to see in this report. We would also like to thank these groups for their invaluable contributions.

The data and comments we collected are extremely impressive. It is clear that departments are truly making concerted efforts to recruit and retain Indigenous employees. However, they struggle to measure the impact of these efforts. Five years after the MVOM release, the number of activities undertaken has clearly increased significantly. However, the departments are not experiencing results commensurate with their efforts. The federal public service at large is struggling to recruit and retain Indigenous Peoples. Based on the feedback received to date, it seems that many organizations are questioning their efforts, as they are not yielding the results they had hoped for. We recognize that this can be quite discouraging for departments. As employee expectations rise, greater pressure is exerted on existing resources. Data availability is sometimes limited and lagging, making it very difficult on smaller organizations that do not necessarily have the resources needed to report on the current state of their workforce. In addition, the pandemic, which began in the fiscal year covered by this report, had a notable impact on departmental progress.

Despite all this, there are factors that work in our favour. We have five years of the MVOM under our belt and there is a palpable appetite in the system for diversity, and there is goodwill on the part of senior management to put in place measures to attain stated diversity objectives. We are seeing an appetite for change like never before. There is proof that the federal public service can adapt to virtual and hybrid environments and produce expected results. And perhaps most importantly, there is a vast, untapped pool of talent within the Indigenous labour market.

We need to do things differently if we want better results. A more aggressive, proactive and systemic approach is required to address systemic issues. Departments must be supported by a whole-of-government approach to address systemic issues while given the flexibility to focus on their respective needs.

Finally, we need a major cultural change if we truly want to build a federal public service that is more diverse, inclusive and accessible. We can do this by ensuring equitable access to opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and recognizing the incredible value that they bring to the table. Diversity makes our workforce stronger, more versatile and intellectually nimble, which allows us to deliver better programs and services to all Canadians.

This report is intended to be informative and the recommendations useful in determining Indigenous recruitment, training and retention priorities. When reading, I encourage organizations to assess the recommendations against both their needs and their capacity. I invite you to choose a few initiatives that you can plan, develop and implement in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples/employees. Most importantly, measure their impact. Once you have done this, I invite you to reflect on the lessons learned before taking on more initiatives.

I remain, as always, extremely committed to supporting the Clerk’s Call to Action and to continuing the Pathway to Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples by building a public service that is diverse, inclusive and accessible. I seek your continued support in this quest.

Gina Wilson
Deputy Minister Champion for Indigenous Federal Employees

The Demographics

One of the biggest challenges in the federal public service is access to accurate and timely data on the workforce. To deliver a quality assessment, data must be collected from staffing systems, human resource systems, pay systems and others, which is not a seamless task. Not all departments have the resources to maintain the teams required to mine their data. Central agencies do offer some great reporting, but it does not always cover the entire federal public service and some of the reports are simply not timely enough to allow departments to adjust their priorities. There are reporting requirements that, for privacy reasons, limit what we are able to publish. For these reasons, the data we requested from departments under the demographics section was limited. However, here is what we did gather.

The Overall Indigenous Population

Data sourced from Statistics Canada shows that the Canadian population in March 2021 was estimated at 38,124,373^{Footnote 1}. The total Indigenous population for the same period was estimated at 1,807,250^{Footnote 2} – approximately 4.73% of the total population.

Statistics Canada states that the Indigenous population is growing and that Indigenous youth are the fastest-growing demographic in the country:

“The Indigenous population was 8.2 years younger, on average, than the non-Indigenous population overall. Just over one in six working-age Indigenous people (17.2%) were ‘close to retirement’ (55 to 64 years), compared with 22.0% of the non-Indigenous population.” ^{Footnote 3}

If the federal public service continues to struggle in its efforts to recruit and retain Indigenous Peoples as a whole, it will not be able to successfully leverage this key demographic.

The Overall Indigenous Population in the Core Public Service

The total number of employees in the core public service on March 31, 2021^{Footnote 4} was 228,345, and of those employees, 11,977 identified as Indigenous.

These are the numbers for the past five years:

While the 2021 year is a high mark for the total number of Indigenous Persons as members of the federal public service, when expressed as a percentage of the whole public service, the same number results in a return to 2017 staffing levels. This is after three years of decline.

Workforce Availability

In the federal public service, workforce availability (WFA) is calculated to determine hiring targets. These estimates are derived from the labour market availability (LMA), which is derived from the Census, and the Canadian Survey on Disability. WFA includes Canadian citizens active in the labour market who are at least 15 years of age and is based on occupations in the Canadian workforce corresponding to occupations in the public service.

To properly assess the representativeness of the public service workforce,

“it is important to ensure that WFA estimates are reflective of the qualifications, eligibility and geographic constraints applied to the public service. For instance, as recruitment to the public service favours Canadian citizens, calculation of WFA estimates for Indigenous Persons, members of visible minorities and women exclude census respondents who are not Canadian citizens. Moreover, calculation of WFA estimates accounts only for occupations that are found in the public service and reflect the relative importance of each of these occupations within the workforce. This ensures that the type of work done by Census respondents included in WFA estimates matches that of public service workforce employees. In other cases, it is necessary to make further adjustments to the calculation of the estimates by considering education requirements and regional distribution.”^{Footnote 5}

While it is understood that many feel these targets are too low and not representative of the true workforce, one must keep in mind that WFA targets are intended to be a minimum threshold that departments measure themselves against. It is also worth noting that there are no repercussions for not meeting the minimum.

Many departments who responded to the MVOM questionnaire omitted their WFA numbers. However, there is WFA data from published reports stemming from central agencies. The tables below are from the Clerk’s Annual Reports to the Prime Minister.

As can be seen by the tables above, Indigenous representation has remained relatively unchanged over the past few years. This is one reason some departments are feeling somewhat discouraged. Despite all of the efforts and resources they’ve invested, tangible results remain out of reach. Moreover, it is alarming that there is a downward trend with new Indigenous hires, despite a growing youth demographic.

While the minimum target is being met for the federal public service as a whole, each department is given its own target as well. Data provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat for the core public service indicates that there are still departments not meeting their targets.

As for the forty-nine organizations who responded to the MVOM questionnaire, not all were able to provide their general population numbers, and even fewer provided numbers for their Indigenous populations. Therefore, an analysis of overall trends was not possible.

Results by Many Voices One Mind Pillars

The second part of the MVOM Scorecard questionnaire contained a series of questions specific to each MVOM pillar, as well as some additional general questions. Departments were transparent in their replies and narratives. The objective of this report was never to compare departments, as they are too different to do so, but rather to report on trends found in the responses. When numbers are too small, they will not be included in this report so that no employee could be identified. In order to clearly articulate results and recommendations consistently, and to avoid a lengthy report, the same template is being used for each pillar: the numbers, observations collected during the feedback sessions, and some recommendations (and best practices) where applicable.

Pillar 1: Recruitment and Retention

Questionnaire Results and Commentary

• Forty-three out of forty-nine respondents could tell us exactly how many selection (staffing) processes they ran
• Forty-four out forty-nine respondents could tell us how many candidates were appointed from these processes
• Twenty-six out of those forty-four respondents could tell us how many appointed candidates were Indigenous

Commentary: The purpose of these questions was to see where Indigenous employees were coming from. While it is positive to see that the majority of departments have a good handle on their hiring processes and the number of overall appointments being made, they are not as successful at identifying what mechanisms are being used to recruit Indigenous employees. There could be several reasons for this; for instance, candidates may not self-declare this information during the collection of employment equity (EE) information, as it is voluntary, numbers are too small to report on, systems are not in place to track, etc. However, this information would be important to track, in light of the fact that many departments struggle to find Indigenous candidates.

---

• Twenty-one of those twenty-six respondents were able to report if candidates lived outside the National Capital Region
• Only one respondent was able to report if the candidates living outside the National Capital Region were offered a chance to work remotely from their home community

Commentary: The purpose of these questions was to see, even at the beginning of the pandemic, if departments were offering telework arrangements, or if Indigenous candidates’ preference to remain in their rural, remote and/or isolated home communities presented a barrier to them. Remaining in their communities is a very important factor for Indigenous Persons in accepting a position in the federal public service, particularly for those who do not reside in urban areas.

---

• Only one respondent was able to report if their processes had at least one Indigenous board member. One reported they did not have any Indigenous board members for their processes. One respondent did not reply. All forty-six other respondents said they did not track the information.
• Only one respondent could confirm that they consulted Indigenous Persons when developing the assessment tools. Two respondents confirmed that they had not consulted Indigenous Persons in developing their assessment tools. One respondent did not reply, and the other forty-five stated they did not track this information.

Commentary: These questions were asked to measure progress against one of the recommendations in the MVOM Action Plan that states: “Review staffing processes across the system to ensure that hiring and interview boards are culturally appropriate and culturally sensitive…” The MVOM Action Plan also states: “Include Indigenous public servants on external facing recruitment teams.” It is understood that there is a lack of potential Indigenous board members as several Indigenous employees told us that they are highly solicited and cannot participate on every board they are asked to sit on. This is something that organizations may want to further pursue.

---

• Eight respondents confirmed how many staffing appointments were made from pools created by processes run by other departments.

Commentary: Few departments confirmed the use of pools created by other departments, and none could tell us how many Indigenous employees were appointed from such pools. What is worth noting is that several respondents stated that one of the most helpful tools in addressing their recruitment needs would be a centralized repository of qualified Indigenous candidates from pools across the federal public service. Currently, many respondents told us they do not have easy access to other departments’ pools. In addition, many hesitate to share their pools for fear of the pool being exhausted while they might still have a need. Others noted that a department might get access to pools from other departments if they have staff in their own department that have an existing relationship with contacts in other departments that created the pool, etc. This low number may be a reflection of this.

---

• Eight respondents confirmed having completed hiring processes open only to Indigenous candidates; twenty-seven said no processes limited to Indigenous candidates were run; thirteen did not track this information and one did not reply.
• When asked if candidates from processes open to Indigenous candidates only were hired, all eight of these respondents could tell us how many.
• When asked for details about whether these appointments were at level, promotions, demotions, etc., the numbers were too low to report on.
• Of the hiring processes completed that were open to Indigenous candidates only, two of the eight respondents confirmed that one of the board members was Indigenous and that they consulted Indigenous Persons in the development of their assessment tools.
• No respondents confirmed having made an appointment from a process run by another department that was open to Indigenous candidates only.

Commentary: When determining if a selection process will be open only to Indigenous candidates, departments must weigh this decision against other factors, such as the overall feasibility. It’s not always an easy decision and each organization is different. For these reasons, it is recommended that opening processes to Indigenous candidates only always be considered when staffing is being planned. Though few organizations could provide numbers, the data received did show that this approach can generate a worthwhile number of candidates.

---

• Five respondents confirmed that they had a requirement for board members to take Indigenous culture and sensitivity training, as part of the staffing process. Forty-three confirmed they did not have such a requirement, and one respondent did not reply.
• Thirteen respondents confirmed that they performed outreach activities to advertise their external staffing processes. Twenty-seven confirmed they did not. Eight replied that they do not track this information. One did not reply.

Commentary: These questions were included in the questionnaire as a way to measure progress against the MVOM Action Plan recommendation that states: “Extend outreach networks used by the staffing managers to include Indigenous communities, Indigenous post-secondary institutions, colleges and polytechnic institutes, and campus-based institutions mandated to provide services and supports to Indigenous students.” This may be a best practice worth considering for those organizations who have yet to incorporate this in their staffing plans. Those who provided names of organizations consulted did so mostly with Indigenous associations and post-secondary institutions, especially those who have Indigenous study programs, and certain Indigenous communities. The results are also showing an uptake in use of social media, such as Facebook pages dedicated to Indigenous recruitment.

---

• Two respondents confirmed that they undertook a review of each step of their assessment processes to see if Indigenous candidates succeeded at the same rate as non-Indigenous candidates. Forty-two confirmed they did not undertake such a review. Three said they did not track this information and two did not reply.

Commentary: This question was asked to measure progress against the MVOM Action Plan recommendation that states: “Review staffing processes across the system to ensure that… action is taken to remove barriers to the appointment and promotion of Indigenous Peoples.” The Action Plan also states: “Review recruitment, development and promotion policies and processes through the lenses of diversity and inclusion, and reconciliation, to root out biases that discriminate against Indigenous Peoples.” While this may be an onerous exercise, the results could be very insightful for organizations, highlighting their blind spots and showing what adjustments to their assessment tools are required to ensure that barriers are not unconsciously created for Indigenous candidates. It is also worth noting that one of the respondents who conducted such a review was able to pinpoint where Indigenous candidates were successful.

---

• Twenty-seven respondents confirmed that they had an appointed champion (specifically) for Indigenous employees. Twenty-two confirmed they did not. Of the twenty-two who did not, twenty-one did have a champion for all EE-seeking groups.
• Of these twenty-seven respondents who said they had a champion (specifically) for Indigenous employees, seventeen confirmed that their champion had taken training on Indigenous culture and sensitivities. One respondent said that they did not, while nine did not track this information.

Commentary: This question was asked was because of the MVOM Action recommendation which states: “Establish an accountability framework for Departmental Champions for Indigenous employees that includes:

• Mandatory diversity and inclusion training
• Mandatory unconscious bias training
• Mandatory training to develop cultural competencies in regard to Indigenous Peoples
• Providing champions with financial resources to achieve results.”

It is very encouraging to see how many organizations have a champion for Indigenous employees. We strongly recommend that they continue this practice and ensure that a succession plan is in place for future champions. It is understood that many of those who have diversity and equity champions may not have one specifically for Indigenous employees but do have one for all EE-seeking groups, mostly because of the size of the organization. While future exercises could delve into whether champions are provided with financial resources, we see an opportunity for improvement with regards to mandatory training for champions.

---

• Thirty-two respondents confirmed that they had an Indigenous Employees Network (IEN), while seventeen confirmed they did not. Of the thirty-two, twenty-six confirmed they had an opportunity to report to senior management on its deliberations, three did not report to senior management and three did not track this information. Twenty-nine of the thirty-two said that their IEN had been consulted on Indigenous matters, one had not and two did not track this information.
• Of the thirty-two respondents who confirmed that they had an IEN, only two confirmed they consulted with IEN on Statements of Merit. Twenty confirmed they did not consult them, and ten said they did not track this information.

Commentary: Again, the size of the organization often determines if they will have an Indigenous Employees Network. These results are encouraging. The majority of these networks report to senior management via their champion. Only one respondent confirmed that their employee network had direct access to their deputy head. One recurring comment is that Statements of Merit criteria are not clear or especially inviting for Indigenous candidates. Seeking input from Indigenous employees on Statements of Merit, who actually know the organization, could be very insightful, especially as many organizations stated that one of the biggest impediments to recruitment is attracting potential candidates. The questionnaire also asked what types of topics the networks were consulted on. The most common answers were: communications from deputy ministers, wellness initiatives, recruitment and retention priorities, training, Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results, onboarding, mentoring and policies. Finally, another recurring comment is that Employee Networks are not properly resourced and volunteering for such networks is often on employees’ personal time.

---

• Thirty-four respondents confirmed they had a formal onboarding program for all employees, and fifteen confirmed they did not. Two respondents confirmed that they had a formal onboarding program specifically aimed at Indigenous employees, while forty-seven confirmed they did not.
• Twenty-eight respondents confirmed they had a formal onboarding program for students, eighteen confirmed that they did not, and three did not reply.
• Six respondents confirmed that they had a formal onboarding program for Indigenous students, forty-one confirmed they did not, and two did not reply.

Commentary: The MVOM Action Plan calls upon departments to “Inspect current onboarding … to ensure that they incorporate Indigenous historical and cultural awareness components throughout.” While it is encouraging to see that so many organizations have a formal onboarding program, there are still several who do not. There were only two organizations who had an onboarding program specifically aimed at Indigenous employees. Onboarding programs are proven to help with employee retention. As the federal public service is losing Indigenous employees as fast as we recruit them, onboarding programs are one of the initiatives that organizations can use to help remedy this issue. They can be an effective way to offer Indigenous recruits, at a key moment in their career, a clear idea of the resources and initiatives available specifically to them. While many organizations do not have the resources to offer an onboarding program specifically designed for their new Indigenous recruits, a general onboarding program offered to all could have a positive impact on all new recruits. Organizations are encouraged to review existing onboarding programs to ensure that there is Indigenous content. One of the ways of doing this could be asking current or retired Indigenous public servants to come and speak to new recruits about their own personal experiences.

---

• Twenty-seven respondents confirmed that they do not provide their employees with access to Elders, while twenty-two did.

Commentary: It is encouraging to see how many organizations offer the services of Elders to Indigenous staff. While finding available Elders can be difficult, it is suggested that departments who do not currently offer these services, consider offering Elder services at key moments, such as the onboarding process.

---

• Four respondents confirmed that all of their executives had specific Indigenous recruitment targets in their Performance Management Agreements (PMAs), four stated that some of the executives had such targets, twenty-six confirmed that none of their executives had such targets, and fifteen confirmed that they did not track this information. Out of the eight respondents who had either all or some executives with such targets, only one could confirm if these targets were met. The other seven did not track the information.

Commentary: There is a school of thought that says if you want results, you need to reward them. Many might feel that if you put specific recruitment targets in executive PMAs, you will get results. However, many executives also say that even with such targets, without the proper support to ensure that these targets can be met, such objectives are unattainable. Regardless of your point of view, there are many factors to consider when putting such an objective in executive PMAs. However, if an organization does opt to include Indigenous recruitment targets in executive PMAs, it must ensure that the necessary supports are in place before it measures the performance against such an objective.

---

• Thirty respondents confirmed that they analyzed their PSES results for Indigenous employees, five said they were too small to get such results, fourteen confirmed they do not analyze such results.
• Of the thirty respondents who said they had completed the analysis, eight confirmed that they prepared a subsequent action plan to address issues, fifteen confirmed they did not, and seven stated they prepared a global action plan to address results for all employees.
• Thirty-one respondents confirmed that they conduct exit interviews, eighteen confirmed they did not. Of the thirty-one who did, seventeen confirmed that they report their findings to senior management (seven did it once, three did it quarterly, two did it semi-annually, and five did it annually) and fourteen confirmed they did not. Only two confirmed that they specifically report on findings related to Indigenous employees.

Commentary: The PSES can be a useful source of information on issues facing a certain demographic of the federal workforce. While it is understood that many organizations do not have sufficient representation to report on the findings specifically related to their Indigenous employees, there were also almost none that looked at the overall results related to Indigenous employees to address issues raised in their action plans. The PSES results seem to be a missed opportunity for organizations to have more focused discussions with their Indigenous employees. Organizations who do not already do so may want to pay close attention to upcoming survey results and consider opportunities to engage with Indigenous staff through activities such as discussion groups, sharing circles, etc. Exit interviews, when properly administered, are also a useful tool for organizations to identify issues regarding retention. It is interesting that exit interviews seem more popular with smaller organizations. However, the reporting of results is concerning, with some organizations reporting that they either do not provide reports to senior management or that they report right after an exit interview is done. Many employees expressed concerns with exit interviews stating they will not participate in them for fear that information will be passed on to their new organization, or for fear of retaliation. As one employee stated, they may want to leave their manager which is why they accepted a position in another organization, but they like their former organization and would like to return. They felt they would not be able to return if they were honest during their exit interview. Many see filing a harassment complaint or being honest during an exit interview as a career-limiting move.

---

• Thirty-three respondents were able to provide the exact number of security clearance forms they processed within the year. Three respondents confirmed that they had denied some clearances. The others confirmed they had not. Only three respondents confirmed the number of clearances they processed for Indigenous candidates.

Commentary: The MVOM Action Plan calls on us to remove barriers: “Review recruitment, development and promotion policies and processes through the lenses of diversity and inclusion, and reconciliation, to root out biases that discriminate against Indigenous Peoples.” The questions listed above were included to get a better understanding as to whether the security clearance process is creating a systemic barrier to Indigenous recruitment. While very few departments report denying a security clearance, statistics provided to us by the IT Apprenticeship Program for Indigenous Peoples, as well as concerns expressed by hiring managers in some departments that were shared with us in 2022, point to a higher rate of clearances being denied to Indigenous candidates. This suggests a potential systemic issue that needs to be addressed. There is also concern with the level of training being offered to departmental security officers who conduct interviews with Indigenous candidates to discuss their criminal and financial history.

Recommendations for Departments

1. Track the number of Indigenous employees appointed from their advertised selection processes to see and understand where their talent pool is coming from.
2. Ensure that every assessment board for advertised selection processes has at least one Indigenous board member.
3. Ensure that all hiring managers and hiring process board members receive Indigenous culture and sensitivity training.
4. Seek the help of an Indigenous resource to develop their assessment tools to ensure their tools are culturally appropriate and sensitive.
5. Consider running staffing processes exclusively for Indigenous candidates when feasible.
6. Take steps to promote externally-advertised staffing processes to Indigenous candidates by increasing outreach activities with Indigenous organizations/communities.
7. Undertake a review of staffing processes to see how Indigenous candidates perform vs non-Indigenous candidates, in order to identify potential barriers. For smaller organizations, a review of a sample of processes should be considered.
8. Ensure that champions for Indigenous employees (or those who are champions for all EE-seeking groups) are trained on Indigenous culture and sensitivities, unconscious bias, and diversity and inclusion, and that this information is tracked.
9. Ensure that employee networks are properly resourced.
10. Ensure that the Indigenous Employees Network (IEN) is consulted on issues that matter most to the network.
11. Seek the IEN’s input as Statements of Merit are developed to see how these can be improved to attract more candidates.
12. Put in place a specific Indigenous onboarding program.
13. Include Indigenous elements in general onboarding programs when the size of the organization does not allow for a specific onboarding program for Indigenous recruits.
14. Consider offering Elder services where feasible, especially in support of initiatives such as an onboarding program.
15. Conduct a thorough analysis of the PSES results for Indigenous employees when possible and develop action plans to address issues arising from the analysis.
16. Consult the IEN within the department when preparing the PSES action plan.

Overall Recommendations

• Create a central repository of qualified Indigenous candidates in various selection processes across the federal public service for the benefit of all departments seeking to staff a position with an Indigenous candidate.
• Ensure the provision of culturally-competent advice when developing Statements of Merit criteria.
• Undertake a thorough external review of the security clearance process across the federal public service, with an equity and diversity lens, to ensure that no unfair barriers to recruitment are being created.
• Hold exit interviews led by external third parties to guarantee anonymity and help identify trends that would explain retention challenges; then act on them

Pillar 2: Cultural Competency

Questionnaire Results and Commentary

• Six respondents confirmed that one or some of the courses in the Canada School of Public Service Indigenous Learning Series were mandatory for all employees. The forty-three others did not have such a requirement.
• Thirty respondents confirmed that they provided Indigenous culturally-relevant training to their employees above and beyond what is offered by the Canada School of Public Service; twelve did not, and seven did not track the information.
• Fourteen respondents confirmed that they had at least one mandatory training requirement on Indigenous histories, cultures, community realities and/or life circumstances for all employees. The thirty-five others did not. Of the fourteen who did, three confirmed that all employees subject to the requirement met it, five confirmed they did not, and six confirmed they did not track the information.
• Twenty-two respondents confirmed that they had events with Indigenous speakers, eight did not hold any, and nineteen said they did not track the information.

Commentary: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action no. 57 states: “We call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.” The Indigenous Learning Series offered by the Canada School of Public Service contains several courses to increase public servants’ knowledge on Indigenous matters. These courses are mostly available online. The school always seeks feedback from participants and updates courses accordingly. It also uses Indigenous resources to develop the curriculum and deliver many of the courses when they are interactive. For this report, the school graciously provided statistics on the level of participation by department for each of the courses for fiscal year 2020-2021. It is understood that we received a one-year snapshot (and these have been offered over the course of several years); however, it is enough to see that the numbers are still quite low. While 14 departments have at least one mandatory course on Indigenous histories, cultures, community realities and/or life circumstances for all employees, only three could confirm if this requirement was met. The results seem to suggest there is significant room for improvement in this area. Without question, organizations have the tools and resources at their disposal to do better. And they must do better; much better. While making the entire series mandatory is not being suggested, some of the basic courses should be considered mandatory across the federal public service. Furthermore, the higher the level of the employee, the more training should be required. One participant during one of the MVOM feedback sessions also suggested that departments consider offering a two-tier approach to training. The first tier of training would be mandatory for all employees and the second tier would be for those who have increased interest in learning about Indigenous culture and issues. Departments would encourage employees to take the courses in the second tier once the first tier is completed, and employees wishing to take courses in the second tier would be supported. Organizations should consider a tiered approach that not only considers level of interest by employees, but also their occupational level and functions. The higher the level or the more specific the functions are related to Indigenous matters, the more training should be required. If training is made mandatory, it must be tracked. It is also worth noting that storytelling is an important part of Indigenous cultural learning, and is considered by Indigenous Peoples as an inspiring way to educate people. Considering this fact, it was striking to learn through this report how many departments are not using storytelling, or not tracking their use of this method. It is acknowledged that there is a challenge in finding speakers. With this, it is recommended that

1. Indigenous employees be encouraged to sign up for the Indigenous Speakers and Ambassadors Circle held by the Knowledge Circle for Indigenous Inclusion (KCII), as well as the Federal Speakers’ Forum organized by the Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, and
2. organizations consider actively leveraging the traditional knowledge and expertise held within the Circle and the Centre. Both of these forums are highly solicited for names of potential speakers.

---

• Thirty respondents confirmed that their deputy head had communicated with staff on Indigenous matters, one confirmed that it had not, and eighteen said they did not track the information. Only six respondents confirmed that in these communications, MVOM was mentioned.

Commentary: It is encouraging to see so many deputy heads issue messages on Indigenous matters, and it is hoped the remainder who do not, or those who do not track this information, will soon follow suit. It is also noteworthy that few mention the MVOM in their communications. MVOM is a whole-of-government strategy for Indigenous employees, and yet it is rarely mentioned. The KCII should consider preparing content on issues linked to the MVOM, so that communications teams supporting deputy heads can consider incorporating this information in their messages. The support of senior leaders is critical when speaking on Indigenous matters. Encouraging staff to take training or participate in Indigenous-focused initiatives sends a strong message to their organizations.

---

• Twenty-three respondents confirmed that there were measures in place for executives to improve their own understanding of Indigenous cultures and sensitivities. Fourteen had no measures and twelve did not track this information. Of the twenty-three who had measures in place, eleven confirmed that tracking was in place to ensure the measures were followed, while twelve others did not.

Commentary: The results for this question are quite telling. Less than half the organizations have specific measures in place for executives to improve and support their own cultural understanding of Indigenous cultures and sensitivities, through a distinction-based approach. As a result, it is difficult to reconcile with Truth and Reconciliation Call to Action no. 57. Furthermore, the fact that less than half of those who do have such measures in place actually track whether these measures are followed is concerning. As mentioned previously, the higher the position level one holds, the greater the expectations are for them to complete a higher level of training. This is an area where improvement is needed and departments should be made accountable to do so.

Recommendations for Departments

1. Consider implementing a multi-tiered training plan on Indigenous culture, sensitivities and realities that reflects employee level of responsibility (employee, manager, executive, champion, board member, etc.) and level of interest. Participation is tracked to ensure that departments meet the Truth and Reconciliation Call to Action no. 57.

   Did you know? The Indigenous Training and Development Community of Practice (ITDCoP) is an excellent resource for departments and agencies. The ITDCoP not only disseminates useful information but it also organizes sessions with speakers throughout the federal public service to share best practices.

2. Seek to initiate (or increase) the use of Indigenous speakers who can share their lived experiences with all employees.

   Did you know that you can consult the KCII or the Centre for Diversity and Inclusion to get help finding an Indigenous speaker for an employee event?

3. Deputy heads increase their communications to staff on Indigenous matters and encourage them to participate in training and use resources at their disposal.
4. Recognize Indigenous employees who agree to be speakers at events (for example by mentioning it in their performance appraisal).
5. Find innovative ways to hold ongoing discussions on Indigenous matters and culture at the executive level. For example, using this report and accompanying documents to have tailored discussions, or holding sharing circles led by Indigenous employees or Elders on specific topics (see Annex A).

Overall Recommendations

• KCII regularly prepares messages on resources, training and initiatives that Deputy Ministers can incorporate into their communications to staff.

Pillar 3: Training and Development

Questionnaire Results and Commentary

• Twenty-nine respondents confirmed that they offer coaching to all employees, nineteen others did not, and one did not reply. Of the twenty-nine that did, thirteen could tell us how many employees were being offered coaching, while the other sixteen could not. Only two of the thirteen could tell us how many participants were Indigenous. In both cases, the number of Indigenous employees being offered coaching was zero.
• Thirty respondents confirmed that they offered leadership training to employees, eighteen did not, and one did not reply. Of the thirty who did, twenty-one could tell us how many employees participated. Of the twenty-one, ten could tell us how many participants were Indigenous. For five of the ten, the answer was zero.
• Of the thirty that offered leadership training to employees, three respondents confirmed that they offered leadership programs specifically aimed at Indigenous employees, seventeen confirmed they did not, four did not track this information, and six did not reply. Of the three who had leadership programs specifically aimed at Indigenous employees, two could tell us how many employees participated, one could not.

Commentary: Low representation of Indigenous Persons in the overall federal public service can explain the low-level representation, in some departments, of Indigenous employees in developmental opportunities. However, it is strongly suggested that organizations improve their tracking of how Indigenous employees are registered and how they are doing in these programs. It is critical that organizations ensure that barriers to Indigenous employees’ participation are being addressed. It is also important to determine if the low participation is also a result of Indigenous employees simply not knowing that such opportunities exist. This lack of awareness was shared by some participants during the plenary sessions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Truth and Reconciliation Workshop held in January 2022. Upon learning about various Indigenous-focused initiatives, some noted that they simply weren’t aware of the opportunities being offered in their respective organizations. This is a disconnect that must be addressed. It is worth noting that this issue is not new. In fact, the MVOM Action Plan recommends that organizations “[c]larify how Indigenous employees can access coaching, mentoring and sponsorship opportunities,” as well as “[i]mprove communication about management and leadership development opportunities so that Indigenous participants are aware of them and have time to prepare and to apply.”

---

• Seven respondents confirmed they could tell us how many Indigenous employees made a request for second language training, and most could meet the requests. One confirmed they did not, forty did not track, and one did not reply.

Commentary: It is important to note that the MVOM Action Plan asks organizations to: “Examine opportunities and programs to increase Indigenous employees’ access to culturally appropriate French language training and support during the language training process.” In the final questions of the Scorecard questionnaire, departments were asked what their biggest impediments to recruitment were. One of the most popular answers was second language requirements. While this report will not cover the language issue as it is being considered in other forums, the replies to this question are quite telling. For the purpose of this report, however, the question sought primarily to understand how well departments responded to requests from Indigenous employees for second language training. The results confirm that this information is not tracked by most departments. Many Indigenous employees feel that learning another language should not be imposed on them, especially one that is not relevant to their culture. However, for those who do want to learn French as a second language, as its proficiency is key to ensuring access to management positions, those requests should be met with training that uses culturally-relevant teaching methods to meet the need of Indigenous employees. Culturally-competent organizations track this information thoroughly to ensure that such requests are being met. This is vital, if there is intent to recruit Indigenous Persons from rural, remote and isolated northern communities where access to French training is non-existent.

Recommendations for Departments

1. Closely track Indigenous employees’ participation in developmental programs and ensure those employees are encouraged to participate and then well supported when they do.
2. Identify barriers to Indigenous employee participation in these programs and address them quickly.
3. Track requests from Indigenous employees for second language training and ensure that these requests are met.
4. Consider creating a buddy system between an Indigenous employee and francophone employee (or anglophone, though the biggest need is for French) to allow both parties to practice their language skills and culture.

Overall Recommendations

• Culturally-appropriate second language training is offered centrally and easily accessible by Indigenous employees.

Pillar 4: Talent Management

Questionnaire Results and Commentary

• Seventeen respondents confirmed they offered a mentorship program to employees, thirty did not, one did not track it, and one did not reply. Of the seventeen who were offering mentorship, eleven could tell us how many participants there were, and six could not. Of the eleven who could, six could tell us how many Indigenous employees were being offered mentorship. Of the six, the answer was zero. Only one respondent confirmed having a mentorship program specifically aimed at Indigenous employees.
• Nine respondents confirmed that they had identified Indigenous employees who expressed an interest in advancing their careers, thirty-nine did not, and one did not reply. Of the nine who had identified Indigenous employees who expressed an interest in advancing their careers, seven could tell us exactly how many. Of these same nine, five confirmed that they offered support to these employees.
• Four respondents confirmed that they tracked which of their Indigenous employees were ready and willing to advance to the executive (EX) level. Forty-three did not, and two did not reply.
• Nine respondents could confirm their commitment to second language training for Indigenous employees who are in feeder groups for management positions. Nineteen did not, eighteen did not track, and three did not reply.
• Twenty-four respondents had a developmental program for junior and middle officer-level employees, twenty-four did not, and one did not reply. Of the twenty-four who did, twenty-one could provide the number of employees that were registered. Of the twenty-one, twelve could provide the number of Indigenous employees that were registered. Of these twelve, the answer was zero.
• Three respondents confirmed having a developmental program for junior- and middle-level officers open only to Indigenous employees, forty-two could not, and four did not reply.

Commentary: Once again, it was hoped that the questionnaire would reveal how organizations track Indigenous employees, their career aspirations, as well as what supports were offered to these employees. The results show that several organizations offer opportunities and support to all employees. However, little is known or reported as to how these apply to Indigenous employees. If departments do not know how Indigenous employees succeed in these programs, it is impossible to identify barriers for Indigenous employees and find ways to address them. It is worth noting that the 2020 PSES results tell us that 42% of Indigenous employees did not agree that their organization did a good job at supporting their career development. It is also worth noting that the Public Service Commission of Canada Employment Equity Promotion Rate Study – Three Year Update (issued December 21, 2022) states that “Indigenous Peoples continue to have lower relative promotion rates and have remained consistent across the various time periods in our study (-7.5% for the most recent period ending in 2021).”^{Footnote 6} There is also a need to review the Key Leadership Competencies and especially the associated behaviors, in consultation with Indigenous subject matter experts, to ensure that they are culturally appropriate.

Recommendations for Departments

1. Track Indigenous employees’ career aspirations, identify their potential, and provide them with the tools they need to succeed.
2. Ensure that candidates know about leadership programs, and strongly encourage them to take advantage of the opportunity to participate.
3. Ensure that Indigenous candidates have access to mentors, coaches, elders, etc.

Overall Recommendations

• Review the Key Leadership Competencies and especially the associated behaviors, in consultation with Indigenous subject matter experts, to ensure that they are culturally appropriate.

Pillar 5: Creating Safe Spaces

Questionnaire Results and Commentary

• Forty respondents reported having a mental health strategy and nine did not. None of the respondents confirmed that they had a mental health strategy specifically for Indigenous employees.
• Forty-two respondents were able to report on the number of harassment cases filed, five said their numbers were too small, and two did not reply. Of the forty-two, fourteen were able to state how many were filed by Indigenous employees, one reported the numbers were too small, and twenty-seven said they did not track the information.
• Ten respondents confirmed that they accommodated Indigenous methods, values, teachings, etc. to address conflict in addition to mainstream labour relations processes, thirty-four do not, two did not track the information, and three did not reply.
• Thirty-two respondents were able to provide information on what they did to create a safe space for Indigenous employees.

Commentary: This series of questions sought to gather data on what departments are doing to ensure Indigenous employees have a safe space in which to work. It is positive to see that most organizations have mental health strategies. Though none reported having one specifically aimed at Indigenous employees for 2020-2021, some did report that they had since implemented one. It is also worth noting that the KCII has launched an Indigenous Wellness Strategy. This is very important since the 2020 PSES results tell us that 25% of Indigenous employees did not feel their organization did a good job at raising awareness on mental health issues; in fact, 38% felt emotionally drained, 22% experienced high or very high levels of work-related stress, and 39% said their workplace was not psychologically healthy. Organizations are encouraged to consult the KCII’s Indigenous Wellness Strategy and the newly established Indigenous Wellness Resource Centre for advice on how they can incorporate Indigenous wellness into their departmental wellness strategies. Of note, the numbers provided by organizations on the number of harassment complaints are relatively low. However, the 2020 PSES results tell us that harassment and discrimination remain a concern for Indigenous employees. In fact, 18% of Indigenous employees who responded said they had experienced harassment and 12% had experienced discrimination. Specifically, 18% of 7,593 respondents equals 1,367 employees. This figure is nowhere near the number of complaints reported by organizations for this MVOM Scorecard exercise. The total number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous harassment complaints for 42 of the 49 respondents was far from 1,367. Combine this with the fact that several Indigenous employees told us during the feedback sessions that they would never file such a complaint for fear of reprisal, and a distressing picture is being drawn. This issue is not new. This also came out in the MVOM report consultations five years ago which prompted the following MVOM Action Plan recommendation: “Establish an Ombudsperson for Indigenous Reconciliation to provide a trusted, safe space and whose mandate is to resolve the widest possible range of issues pertaining to bias, racism, discrimination and harassment faced by Indigenous federal employees. The office of the Ombudsperson for Indigenous Reconciliation would provide managers and employees with a confidential environment where informal conversations and conflict resolution improve workplace understanding, support and relationships.” It is encouraging to see that organizations are using alternative methods that are aligned with Indigenous values and practices to address conflict, in addition to their labour relations practices. All organizations are encouraged to do so. However, it might not be enough. Until the federal public service can get to the root causes and devise solutions for the harassment and discrimination faced by Indigenous employees, retention issues will continue.

Recommendations for Departments

1. Consider specific actions in mental health strategies to address issues raised by Indigenous employees through surveys, as well as those reflected in the current environment (e.g., residential schools).
2. Continue to seek ways to integrate alternative conflict resolution methods that align with Indigenous culture and values, along with traditional labour relations processes.

3. Encourage Indigenous employees to conduct sharing circles within their organizations or participate in those run by others.

   Did you know? The Knowledge Circle for Indigenous Inclusion organizes sharing circles open to Indigenous employees and also offers training so that Indigenous employees can learn how to run such circles in their own organizations?

4. Proactively seek feedback from Indigenous employees on ways to eliminate harassment and discrimination.

Overall Recommendations

• Establish an Indigenous Ombudsman for ALL Indigenous Federal Public Servants.
• Hold exit interviews conducted by external third parties to guarantee anonymity and to identify trends that would explain retention challenges; then act on results.

Overall Questions

Questionnaire Results and Commentary

The final questions on the questionnaire were narrative questions that provided valuable information and suggestions.

First, departments were asked to provide details on any initiative they had launched since the launch of MVOM. Forty-two organizations stated they had launched initiatives. The responses ranged from one to eighty-five initiatives. Though examples were provided, many organizations described initiatives that would be better described as best practices. Also, very few departments could provide details on the impact of these initiatives.

Commentary: While most organizations are making tremendous efforts, the fact that impact is not being measured by so many is concerning. How do organizations decide what to implement? How do they know when an initiative is not yielding results, or conversely, is succeeding? Having answers to these questions enables more effective use of resources overall.

There was, however, one initiative that we felt needed specific mentioned as it is part of our suite of recommendations. In December 2020, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) launched the IT Apprenticeship Program for Indigenous Peoples. Seeing the potential early on, the Chief Information Officer Council members of the Government of Canada (GC) endorsed the apprenticeship program in March 2021. ESDC was then mandated to expand the program and make it a whole-of-government initiative. Indigenous apprentices are hired at the entry level of the IT group (IT01 or equivalent) for a 24-month term, during which they are guided through an integrated learning program that combines on-the-job work experience with formal training and mentorship. At the end of the program, apprentices are issued a digital certificate and credential, signed by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of Canada and a first of its kind within the federal government, as confirmation of their successful completion. Additionally, the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer and the CIO of Canada have agreed that the successful completion of the program fulfills the alternative educational requirements of the GC Qualification Standard for IT positions, which are based on an acceptable combination of education, training, and/or experience. This helps to ensure that Indigenous apprentices can successfully pursue a career in IT in the public service.

During its ideation, a large number of Indigenous stakeholders were engaged to ensure the program would respond to the needs of Indigenous Peoples across Canada. In particular, the program team worked closely with the Native Women’s Association of Canada to hear directly from Indigenous women and gender-diverse peoples from across Canada in order to deliver a program that would respond to the needs of this important community. In short, the program was designed by, for, and with Indigenous Peoples. The relationships of trust that were established early on are being maintained and carefully protected, and they are a natural conduit to forming respectful relationships with new Indigenous Nations, communities and partners.

The results achieved by the program are outstanding. As of the end of January 2023, two hundred and forty Indigenous Persons from over ninety different Indigenous communities have applied. Sixty-six candidates were hired by fifteen departments, another seventeen applicants are awaiting decisions from hiring managers, while another twenty-nine applicants are in various stages of referral. Since its launch, the program has achieved a 98% retention rate and a 97% job offer acceptance rate. Regular pulse surveys conducted with apprentices consistently show very high job satisfaction rates, an ability to maintain a work/life balance, as well as very high rates of feeling cultural safety and respect.

Thirty-five percent of all apprentices hired work from their home communities. This alone represents an injection of over $1.25M into local Indigenous economies through the salaries earned by apprentices.

Also of note, nearly 30% of all apprentices hired are Indigenous women and gender-diverse peoples. While this is not yet parity, the result is exponentially better than the currently less than 1% representation rate for Indigenous women within the IT workforce of the Government of Canada.

There is a vision in place for further expanding the program. This initiative is exemplary for several reasons. For one, it addresses many issues raised as an impediment. For example, getting Indigenous candidates to apply is being cited by departments as an issue. The IT Apprenticeship Program leaders did a significant amount of outreach to ensure that Indigenous Peoples knew about the program. That has paid off. Candidates are assigned a peer-partner and a mentor to guide them through their workday. Nevertheless, many Indigenous employees referred to a sink-or-swim mentality in their workspace, where they had little support in an unfamiliar environment. To help counter this, the program also facilitates weekly sharing circles for all apprentices, irrespective of their department or agency. The sharing circles, led by Indigenous employees for Indigenous employees, create a safe and culturally-respectful environment for apprentices to build all-important networks while being part of a community of IT practitioners.

The development of the employee is a step-by- step process. It involves hands-on support and online training, together with the award of micro-credentials at each step of the learning journey.

The program is slowly changing the perception that some Indigenous Peoples might have of working in the Federal Public Service. In addition to aligning with several Indigenous values, it also places a strong emphasis on community – something that is very important to Indigenous Peoples. The program specifically supports candidates who wish to work from their home communities. Being able to contribute to their local communities has often been cited as a key factor in accepting a position.

What makes it different is that it is very different from our traditional recruitment methods as it recruits candidates based on their potential, not on their existing experience. The program team meets with every applicant to get to know their unique life journey. There is a recognition that we each walk a different path in life and that no one pathway is better than another. By hiring individuals based on their passion and potential, rather than on education attainment rate, the program confronts head-on one of the largest barriers facing many Indigenous Peoples. By using this approach, the program is being described as “life-changing” by those who are participating in it. This is a model that needs to be replicated in other areas such as human resources, finance, procurement, graphic design, etc.

This also aligns with what several Indigenous employees have told us: they do not necessarily want to work on Indigenous files. Some are interested in IT. Some are keen about finance. They would love to work in these areas but often feel that the only opportunities offered to them are for positions related to Indigenous files. Having Indigenous employees working in different areas is another step towards true diversity in the public service. While departments still have to ensure that the work environment is healthy and that employees continue to develop if they expect to retain them, apprenticeship programs are an effective way to find Indigenous candidates, offer attractive opportunities, and provide a solid footing for their lifelong career. Having a centralized group that can ensure continuous outreach with Indigenous communities (as opposed to having sixty different organizations trying to maintain the same) would be enormously beneficial. This dedicated hub could assist candidates with the application process (which can be difficult to navigate), develop an appropriate training curriculum, cultivate a safe space for candidates, and be an effective way to meet a vital part of overall recruitment needs. This group could also develop the expertise in running apprenticeship programs for Indigenous candidates that could apply to any professional group.

In addition to the successes achieved, the work done by the IT Apprenticeship Program for Indigenous Peoples is also uncovering areas of concern. One such area is related to security clearances, as evidence to date points to higher rates of security clearance denials for Indigenous Peoples compared to the rate of denials for non-Indigenous Peoples. The data that is being collected can and should be used to help remove this barrier.

---

Organizations were also asked if they had an MVOM-type strategy, action plan or other such document in place. Of the forty-nine respondents, nineteen said they did, twenty said they did not, and one did not answer. Of the nineteen who said they did, eleven confirmed that they tracked progress against this plan, eight others did not. Only a few who tracked their progress were able to provide details.

Commentary: Organizations are strongly encouraged to track the initiatives that they put in place. While it is acknowledged that there is a real struggle with measuring impact (e.g., lack of easily available data, limitations brought on by privacy legislation, difficulty finding a measurement for items that are not quantifiable, etc.), departments must consider this prior to initiative implementation. While there is no doubt that many initiatives are launched with the best of intentions, without demonstrating impact and reporting on it, how does an organization gauge whether the investment was worth it? Combined with the feedback from many Indigenous employees who felt they were not consulted on initiatives, or that their feedback was ignored, this could create the impression that actions or initiatives were merely a perfunctory box-checking exercise. And if the MVOM is a whole-of-government strategy for Indigenous employees, departments must factor these elements into their overall human resources planning.

---

Finally, organizations were asked to detail obstacles to recruitment and retention, as well as what they required to address these obstacles. While worded differently, there were recurring themes. In terms of recruitment, many organizations noted that attracting Indigenous talent was a real struggle. Some organizations mentioned a reluctance by Indigenous Peoples to join the federal public service. Many smaller organizations mentioned the challenge of competing with larger organizations. Basically, they are vying for the same candidates. The language requirements were also noted as a significant barrier.

In terms of retention, organizations noted the fierce competition between departments, some even referring to poaching by others and the inability, especially for smaller organizations, to compete with larger departments in terms of opportunities and levels. It is therefore not surprising that the needs identified to address these matters were to tackle the language issue and recognize the value of Indigenous languages. There were also many requests for a centralized repository where the lists of all qualified Indigenous candidates from competitions across the federal public service be kept and easily shared with organizations wishing to hire Indigenous Persons. There was some frustration expressed that not all departments were willing to share their lists, most likely as they would like to hold onto candidates for future staffing. On the other hand, the authors of this report also heard from Indigenous employees about their frustrations around being qualified in a process, and in many cases, several processes, yet never being selected before the pool expired. There is also some concern expressed that the competition between organizations is so fierce, that sometimes Indigenous candidates are being appointed to positions in a rush without the proper support system in place to ensure they are set up to succeed.

Further comments were received about the need to better coordinate reporting to central agencies. Organizations commented how the MVOM Scorecard Report also coincided with the Report on Multiculturalism, and the work required to respond to the Clerk’s Call to Action. Organizations are asking that these entities have discussions around content and timing of requests to ensure there is no overlap.

Recommendations for Departments

1. Choose a few key initiatives/actions and focus on those, meaning that Indigenous employees are consulted and that their feedback is taken into consideration, that performance indicators are determined prior to undertaking initiatives, and that initiatives/actions are measured against these indicators and reported on. Once these initiatives/actions are proven to be effective, then more can be added.
2. Consult and consider the MVOM Action Plan in deciding what initiatives to undertake.
3. Emphasize measuring the impact of any initiative undertaken.
4. Actively participate in apprenticeship programs and offer opportunities to candidates.
5. Hire Indigenous candidates based on the right fit for the position and offer them the support they need to succeed.
6. Support Indigenous employees’ language training needs when they express such an interest.

Overall Recommendations

• Complete a study (possibly by an academic institution) on Indigenous Peoples’ perception of employment in the Federal Public Service to understand the reasons why they do not want to join (e.g., is it a culturally-driven negative perception, is it application barriers?)
• That more apprenticeship programs, like the IT Apprenticeship Program for Indigenous Peoples, be launched to attract and retain Indigenous talent. These programs must be properly funded and have the appropriate governance in place to ensure all organizations across the federal public service can benefit. Importantly, the education attainment requirement to join apprenticeship programs should be eased to allow individuals to participate regardless of their level of education. Additionally, the programs should be designed to provide the foundational knowledge required to advance in a specific functional area, with the learning recognized and accepted across the Government of Canada, so that barriers to advancement do not exist.
• Review language requirements and consider recognition of Indigenous languages as an option for certain positions.

• Create a centralized repository of qualified Indigenous candidates.

  Did you know? The Knowledge Circle on Indigenous Inclusion has launched the Indigenous EX-Talent Referral Service. Senior Managers can now contact KCII to request names and resumes of Indigenous candidates for EX-01, 02 and 03 staffing opportunities.

  Did you know? The Indigenous Career Pathways is a tool that facilitates the matching of Indigenous job seekers with hiring managers through two inventories? The inventories are designed to showcase Indigenous talent profiles in order to increase Indigenous representation in the public service. They feature a list of graduates eligible for a bridging opportunity and another of pre-qualified candidates in a pool.

• Coordination between central agencies and KCII to ensure that data requests are streamlined and avoid duplication.

Conclusion and Overall Recommendations

This report puts forward several recommendations for organizations to consider when determining priorities for Indigenous recruitment, development and retention. Departments are to be commended for the efforts made so far, and we hope to see this level of commitment continue. Departments are cautioned not to undertake too much at once. We must reiterate the importance of involving your Indigenous employees in the planning process and priority selection. The importance of measuring the impact of everything that is undertaken cannot be emphasized enough.

This report also validated the belief that there are issues to be dealt with at a departmental level, and others that require a whole-of-government (enterprise-wide) approach. In January 2022, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans held an interdepartmental workshop on Truth and Reconciliation. One of the recommendations stemming from that report was: “Provide long-term and predictable funding to support consistent programs/services/initiatives for First Nation, Inuit, and Métis employees across federal departments: Federal support related to Indigenous recruitment, retention, and advancement across the public service is currently dispersed across different departments. Long-term, sustained funding is necessary to support the ‘knitting together’ of these efforts under a cohesive and single strategy or one-stop-shop’. Long-term and predictable funding can also help to ‘lock in’ progress so that priorities and forward momentum does not change over the years or in response to political cycles.” This recommendation is fully endorsed by this report as it would provide:

• The framework and funding to support initiatives such as apprenticeship programs
• Centralized recruitment processes
• A centralized repository of Indigenous candidates
• Leadership program development, mentoring and coaching services
• An independent and effective exit interview process for employees
• An ombudsman service
• Other services that could provide culturally-appropriate one-stop shopping for Indigenous employees and hiring managers alike

The above would also help with outreach activities in the Indigenous community and the creation of networks that could benefit all organizations. As well, it could play a pivotal role in identifying systemic issues and finding ways to address them. It would alleviate some pressure on organizations, especially smaller ones, when tackling issues that require a solution that is simply out of their reach. This would allow departments to direct resources towards issues specific to their unique needs, while a centralized entity would deal with systemic issues. This recommendation is critical.

While it is hoped that departments will implement these recommendations, it is essential they acknowledge the important culture change that must occur alongside it. The federal public service needs to shift the mindset from one of meeting targets and checking off boxes, to one where there is recognition for the true value added of Indigenous talent. When hiring managers and leaders stop looking at Indigenous recruitment and retention as something that they have to do to meet a requirement and start looking at it as something they want to do because of the value it adds to their programs, the impact to the federal public service will be profound. Instead of asking themselves what they can do to help Indigenous employees join the federal public service, they need to ask themselves what they can do to help their organizations recruit this talent. Instead of asking themselves how they can help their Indigenous employees develop further, they need to ask themselves what they can do to help their organization ensure that Indigenous employees have access to developmental opportunities. The federal public service needs to let go of the notion of “helping” Indigenous employees, which is paternalistic in Indigenous culture, and realize that what is needed is to help organizations.

Indigenous employees are leaving the federal public service as fast as we recruit them, which is reflected in representation rates. Indigenous youth are one of the fastest-growing demographics in Canada, and we have an aging workforce. What is the federal public service doing to get ahead of the game? The numbers have shown that, despite its efforts, Indigenous representation in the federal public service is stagnant. There is a small window of opportunity in which to act, if we are to make a difference. The time is now. Status quo will simply not suffice.

Finally, everyone, including senior leadership, must be involved in the solution. Participate in discussions. Encourage your managers and employees to be a part of those discussions. Listen and act. Anything worthwhile requires effort. Building a public service that is diverse, inclusive, and accessible is a vital step in the pathway to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

Next Steps

This report will be shared with all organizations across the federal public service, even those who did not have the opportunity to fill out the questionnaire. It contains valuable information for all departments, and the recommendations provide food for thought to organizational leaders.

Producing this report certainly came with its challenges, namely in the completion and receiving of the questionnaires, as well as the lack of resources. But we are happy to share that there is indeed enough information in this report to support organizations in the implementation of the recommendations. Planning, implementing, measuring, reporting and adjusting takes a significant of amount of time and resources. For this reason, a scorecard exercise will not be conducted for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. The data is not readily available in some cases and quite outdated in others. Instead, a review of the MVOM Action Plan will be undertaken with the goal to update it. This is what we refer to as MVOM 2.0.

We will now focus our time and efforts on soliciting support from various groups on the proposed recommendations. And we will also connect with Indigenous employees in a more formal manner to see what adjustments need to be made to the MVOM Action Plan. This will be an enormous undertaking. Although this report has done its best to capture concerns via specific consultations, there is more work to be done. Organizations need more time to implement recommendations and develop centralized reporting standards, while working closely with Indigenous employees to maximize success.

Annex A: Questions that can be used for discussions in sharing circles or panel discussions