In Canada, decades of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies – dating back to the 1980s – have been unable to build and shape a public service that is demographically representative of Canadians.

On May 9, 2023, Janice Charette, the Clerk of Canada’s Public Service, issued a “Call to Action forward direction message to deputies,” with respect to the Call to Action on Antiracism, Equity, and Inclusion in the Public Service, launched in 2021. 

Without senior management accountability for the impact of racial harassment on former public servants, the elimination of toxic public service work culture, and a commitment to racial equity at all levels, the Clerk’s call to action, along with the recent direction to deputy ministers (DMs), will fail. 

In the forward direction message, the Clerk states that transformational change is required to fully realize the call to action on antiracism. Yet in a tacit concession that a transformational vision cannot be achieved, the Clerk identifies “a small list” of six actions that DMs must implement immediately:

• Direct each EX to sponsor two or more non-white employees for leadership roles;

• Personally endorse at least one non-white recruitment campaign;

• Give language training to non-white employees ready for advancement;

• Embed anti-racism work in business and mental health action plans;

• Avoid holding meetings / events during significant religious and cultural periods; and

• Invest in employee resources and ensure that employees’ voices are heard.

In addition, the Clerk provides the DMs with a set of four instructions that they must act on:

·      Set goals;

·      Measure progress;

·      Establish consequential accountability; &

·      Employ drivers of success.

I’m a former public servant with 14 years’ service who was expelled from the Government of Canada for standing-up to racial harassment, and I have disappointing news for non-white public servants. If you understand how racism and organizational cronyism work hand in glove in the public service, then you understand that no substantive action will be taken. The goals – which remain undefined – will not be achieved.  

Here’s why.  

Nothing new: same actions, instructions, and goals – but no outcomes – since the 1980s

In the first instance, there is nothing new, and certainly nothing transformational.  The actions and instructions are recycled from decades of failure under the Employment Equity Act, introduced in the mid-1980s.  A Google search by competent analysts will find that iterations of each action, instruction, or goal identified on May 9, 2023 have been proposed before.

And each promised action, instruction, policy, or goal – whether proposed in 1986 or in 2023 – has produced the same outcome: nothing.

In 2021, after four decades of DEI, Canada’s largest “visible minority” groups remained under-represented in Canada’s public service (note the significant 54% gap in South Asian representation, relative to their population).

After 40 years of DEI, racial equity goals were never established

An analysis of federal employment equity goal and objective setting policy directives – from the 1980s to date – reveals the complete absence of specific objectives and measurable goals. Under the guise of merit, and to maintain white-centred organizational cronyism, management resisted racial equity by raising the spectre of “quotas,” instilling the racist fear that unqualified non-white people would take the jobs of qualified white public servants. As noted in Harvey & Blakely, 1993

“A persistent problem in employment equity has centered on a lack of consensus between policy-makers, employers and workers on…goals and timetables that are perceived by all parties as reasonable and possible.”

Racism underpinned the lack of consensus in 1993, and it underpins the approach adopted by the Clerk in 2023. Since my expulsion from the public service in 2018, a myriad of lawsuits, whistleblowers and investigations have laid bare the deeply-seated racism, harassment and cronyism – at the highest levels – impacting IRCC, Global Affairs, the RCMP, DND and many other federal departments and agencies. The problem is so acute, that in the House of Commons, MPs and Committees are conducting their own investigations into racial harassment in the public service. 

At the same time that the House investigates public service racism, the government maintains an initiative called the 50-30 Challenge, which, unlike rudderless public sector employment equity objectives, challenges Canadian employers to achieve two organizational goals: 50% gender parity and 30% non-white and 2SLGBTQ+ representation. 

Given the clear evidence of systemic racism and harassment in Canada’s public service, and the government’s own challenge to Canadian workplaces to set clear equity goals, it is disappointing that the Clerk did not seize the opportunity to take bold, innovative action, and set specific,  measurable racial equity goals for the entire public service.  Instead, the Clerk opted to  repackage 40 years of status-quo DEI.

White saviours, unicorns, and erasure

The Clerk had an opportunity to demonstrate real leadership on racial equity, but abdicated it by downloading actions and undefined goals to line departments and agencies. Worse, the Clerk delegated the management of these directives to the same DMs and executives who actively destroyed the careers of countless non-white public servants, and expelled them from the public service. The Clerk is calling on senior managers with a long history of racial redlining and harassment to reinvent themselves as white saviours. On the basis of goal setting exercises and outcomes from 40 years of government DEI, there is scant evidence to suggest they will succeed.   

As part of the small list of actions, the Clerk directs executives to mentor at least two promising non-white public servants for leadership roles. Having witnessed such programs come and go over 14 years in government, a key observation is that they rarely operate on merit. Non-white mentorship programs are often run informally, and are usually reserved for unicorns – high functioning employees who obey their bosses without question, and who do anything to get ahead. As a recent report demonstrates, the promising non-white leaders selected for these positions are often willing participants in racial harassment and the maintenance of racial inequity.

Another item on the Clerk’s small list of actions is “investing in employee resources and giving employees a voice.” Be wary. I recall routine messages from HR encouraging non-white public servants facing racial harassment to speak to a manager, union, or employee assistance program (EAP). These directives are dangerous. They aren’t designed to support public servants or centre their voices. They’re about erasure. Government antiracism campaigns are designed to identify, blacklist, silence, purge, and erase non-white public servants who stand-up and speak-out. The litany of public disclosures by former public servants who begged management for help with racial harassment, but were ignored, provides the evidentiary basis. I’m one of them.

Attracting and retaining a racially and demographically representative public service requires accountability, change, and measurable equity outcomes

If the Clerk is genuine about advancing racial equity, and “building a strong public service that is set-up to deliver for Canadians,” then get serious about accountability, transformational culture change, and equity at all levels.

A central problem with the Clerk’s antiracism action plan is the complete lack of accountability for racial harassment, discrimination, and professional redlining. Erasing the history of racial harassment in the public service demonstrates a lack of transparency and accountability that renders senior managers unwilling or unable to learn from past mistakes and effect real change.  Acknowledgement and accountability are essential components of restorative justice, and ignoring racial harassment in the public service erodes trust among public servants, stakeholders, Canadians, and international partners.

A key element surrounding antiracism accountability is data. Learning from past mistakes means understanding the scope and magnitude of the damage done to purged public servants.  When I was forced out of government in 2018, my then-MP (Ottawa Centre) assisted with my EI claim and investigation. It was approved on the basis of “voluntary separation owing to discrimination and harassment.” This begs a few numbers questions.  How many other public servants went on EI after being forced out of government? How many took medical leave?  Impact on staff turnover?  Costs to Canadian taxpayers? What are the health, financial, social and reputational harms and costs to these former public servants? If Ottawa area MPs are assisting purged non-white public servants with EI claims, then what do they know about the degree of systemic racism in the public service and what, if anything, are they doing about it?

Taking responsibility is key to transformational culture change. Building a racially equitable public service requires a fundamental shift in culture, norms, and practices, where accountability for racial harassment and toxic work environments, coupled with concrete action, create awareness, understanding, and safer spaces for open dialogue on eliminating racial inequities.

The Clerk must take bold action and establish measurable racial equity outcomes in the public service. The Clerk would be wise to take a page out of the 50-30 challenge. Specifically, commit to 30% non-white representation at all seniority levels, and ensure that underrepresented racial groups reflect their share of the Canadian population. But don’t stop at racial equity; the Clerk can adopt outcome-oriented approaches that establish age, gender, and ability goals to ensure a truly representative public service.

Finally, it is clear that the Clerk needs better advice on advancing racial equity in the public service. The executives responsible for four decades of racial redlining, harassment, and failed DEI cannot deliver. The talented former public servants expelled for standing-up to racism can. To effect real change, the Clerk needs to enlist the former public servants whose careers were  destroyed by racial harassment, demonstrate accountability, stop erasing their experiences, and acknowledge the harm done. We have the bold, innovative, and workable ideas to build racial, gender, age, and ability equity in Canada’s public service. The Clerk’s management team does not.