Open Government means Federal Government Job Opportunities Truly Open to All

Follow:

  • RSS
  • Cite
Submitted By
Jérémie D. Drouillard
Tags
Votes: 32

Partners: Government of Canada (GoC), President of the Treasury Board of Canada (TBS) , Minister of Sports and Persons with Disabilities, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, President of the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC), Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), Civil Society

The new Standard on Security Screening of the Government of Canada became effective on October 20, 2014. (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=28115) This Standard of the Government's new security screening policy includes, at a minimum, new mandatory credit checks and fingerprinting. The new Standard replaces the Personnel Security Standard, created in 1994.

The 2016 Federal Budget has a cover entitled “Growing the middle class”. This implies that opportunities for well-remunerated jobs in both the public and private sector will be made available in the Canadian economy in the not too distant future, allowing no income or low income Canadians to access better jobs that allow them to join the middle class. However, the experiences of being denied employment and/or being terminated from employment due to credit checks/bad financial history in the private sector are now potentially becoming a practice in the public sector.

The new Standard goes much further than previous policies and practices on security screening. While some employees who are in high security positions may have had to undergo security screening, this new policy applies to all employees. Employees, regardless of security status, will have to undergo fingerprinting and credit checks. This is unnecessary and goes too far. Credit checks can especially have a negative impact on members who are most vulnerable (e.g single moms, people with disabilities who have had to take long term sick leave). The policy doesn’t provide any details of what is considered “bad credit”. Another new aspect of the policy is to require employees to report any changes in financial status or even about their personal lives (e.g. divorce). Members who fall on hard times will have the added worry that their job will be in jeopardy.

Throughout the working years (15-64 years of age) people with disabilities remain about twice as likely as those without disabilities to live with low income. People with disabilities are much less likely than people without to have jobs. Even where employed, people with disabilities are 1.5 times more likely than people without to live with low income. While persons/citizens with disabilities are already being subject to poverty, homelessness and social exclusion, the new Standard creates another barrier to social and professional insertion or reinsertion that is not consistent with the published statement that the “Public Service of Canada is committed to developing inclusive, barrier-free selection processes and work environments.”

No Canadian citizen should, without overwhelming just cause, have to bear the burden of filing a complaint and going through a judicial or quasi-judicial process with the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) or file a human rights complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The new Standard violates the requirements of the Privacy Act and the protections for individual privacy protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (http://psacunion.ca/psac-challenge-new-public-service-security) It can hinder the full participation of all Canadians citizens, and Canadians with Disabilities, to life in society and the benefits of participating in the creation, maintenance and enjoyment of Canada's iconic “Peace, Order and Good Government”.

The partners listed at the top of this idea proposal should create a working group to address this issue in a thorough and dedicated manner. Perhaps a review and amendments to the Standard on Security Screening, the review and change in format of  Treasury Board Secretariat Personnel Screening, Consent and Authorization Form (TBS/SCT 330-23), or a combination of these two processes along with new legislative dispositions included in the long-awaited, and still non-existent, Canadians with Disabilities Act. There are tangible measures that need to be taken to ensure the financial perenity and resiliency of Canadians with Disabilities - and all Canadians for that matter- so that progress on this issue is made real with an  enhanced Open Government that is transparent and accountable to all segments of the Canadian population.

Add new comment

Rules of Engagement

We look forward to hearing from you. Your ideas and feedback are central to the development of both the Open Government portal and the Government of Canada’s approach to Open Government.

While comments are moderated, the portal will not censor any comments except in a few specific cases, listed below. Accounts acting contrary to these rules may be temporarily or permanently disabled.

Comments and Interaction

Our team will read comments and participate in discussions when appropriate. Your comments and contributions must be relevant and respectful.

Our team will not engage in partisan or political issues or respond to questions that violate these Terms and Conditions.

Our team reserves the right to remove comments and contributions, and to block users based on the following criteria:

The comments or contributions:

  • include personal, protected or classified information of the Government of Canada or infringes upon intellectual property or proprietary rights
  • are contrary to the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982
  • are racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic or defamatory, or contain or refer to any obscenity or pornography
  • are threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing
  • are contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • are written in a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

Our team cannot commit to replying to every message or comment, but we look forward to continuing the conversation whenever possible. Please note that responses will be provided in the same language that was used in the original comment.

Our team will reply to comments in the official language in which they are posted. If we determine the response is a question of general public interest, we will respond in both official languages.

Comments

Submitted by Jérémie D. Dro… on April 11, 2016 - 5:18 AM

Hi Rick, Thanks for your comment. Quote from para 4 regarding working years (15-64 years of age) is information that was copy pasted from Public Sector Alliance of Canada website; not my own words or draft. It probably follows the typical labor market statistics about when people decide to retire and legislation regarding when OAS (Old Age Security) kicks in for those wishing to receive it, with the assumption that people will willingly retire at or around that age. I have read Dan Lyon's post regarding age discrimination in the tech/start-up sector and could not agree more that age discrimination should have no place in the labor market, regardless of sector, and that people should have the choice to decide in which sector they wish to work, and how long they wish to remain active engaged employees in any given workplace. Unfortunately, age discrimination is a strong part of insurance industry practices, government policy for programs and benefits delivery, public and private sector corporate cultures, etc. The idea I submitted covers the topic of financial discrimination becoming a very real threat in the public sector. As far as I know, there is no law or legislation with respect to financial discrimination. Getting a job in the government should not have to depend on whether you are a millionaire, made $1 dollar or $100,000 dollars in income in the previous year, or are bankrupt today or in the past. Financial discrimination is common place in the private sector (especially financial services sector) where banks want your T4's from previous years before they hire you, along with full credit checks and financial field investigations, some things that the new Standard on Security Screening for the Government of Canada is allowing the Government to increasingly implement or choose to apply in unclear, unprecise and arbitrary manners.

Submitted by Rick L on April 08, 2016 - 5:28 PM

Hi Jérémie "the working years (15-64 years of age)" -- Quote from para 4. Active, engaged employees who want to continue in their 60's and beyond will find this age range to be discriminatory. Despite legislation prohibiting age discrimination, it is rampant in the public and private sectors (not even hidden in the private sector, see Dan Lyon's recent post to Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-comes-age-bias-tech-companies-dont-even-bother-lie-dan-lyons?trk=prof-post).

Submitted by Jérémie D. Dro… on April 07, 2016 - 7:03 PM

Fingerprinting services for the purpose of Security Screening for employment opportunities are usually conducted by accredited private third party companies that charge fees for the service. A "no cost"/"free"/"reimbursed cost" alternative should be implemented to ensure respect for the values and principles that the "Public Service of Canada is committed to developing inclusive, barrier-free selection processes and work environments.”