Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion: The Way Forward (FON3-V08)

Transcript: Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion: The Way Forward

[00:00:00 CSPS title page. Text on screen: What Unites Us, Defines Us; Values and Ethics in Today's Federal Public Service.]

[00:00:08 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen and addresses the audience from a lectern. Text on screen: Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, Vice-President, Canada School of Public Service.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: So, this afternoon we're going to be turning our focus to the important connection between Values and Ethics, and the Call to Action on Anti-racism, Equity, and Inclusion. Without further ado, we're going to kick off this segment with a short video message from Caroline Xavier, Chief of Communications Security Establishment, and Champion for Racialized Employees.

[00:00:35 Video opens with Caroline Xavier full screen. Text on screen: Caroline Xavier, Communications Security Establishment.]

[00:38 Text on screen: Hello, fellow public servants of Canada.]

Caroline Xavier: Hello, fellow public servants of Canada. My name is Caroline Xavier, and I am the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSE, and the Deputy Minister Champion for Racialized employees for the Government of Canada. My pronouns are she/her. CSE's facilities include both the Edward Drake building, and our offices on the Vanier Parkway. We acknowledge that these locations are the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation who have been on this land since time immemorial. We recognize the important history of their stewardship of this land and understand their contribution to its present and future well-being. In the spirit of Reconciliation, we acknowledge all Indigenous People across Canada and their connection to this land.

As public servants, we recognize our obligation to learn about Indigenous history – including the history of Residential schools – and to work toward the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action, and the implementation of the United Nations' Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am honoured to have been part of the DM Values and Ethics task team last fall because it gave me the opportunity to listen to a range of public servants across Canada in different roles, at different stages of their career and in many different locations, and to hear their perspectives on what it means to be public servants today. As a part of this work, I had the opportunity to personally reflect on the question, what gives us our public service identity when our roles in daily work contexts are so different?

For me, what we do have in common is not just that we serve the government of the day and provide (either directly, or indirectly) services to Canadians. It's that we do all of this, guided by our public service values and ethics.

This matters because when Canadians interact with their government, they are not distinguishing between me at CSE, or Jean offering direct services at Service Canada, or Dion working as a border services agent at the CBSA. What Canadians expect is that we will all deliver our roles with professionalism, respect for taxpayer dollars, and care. Our values and ethics provide us with a framework for fulfilling this obligation to uphold the public's trust. The values also provide a framework to ensure we reflect the identities and experiences of those we serve across Canada in all our policy, programming, and service delivery. We cannot do that without ensuring that we have ways of knowing, understanding, and incorporating a wide diversity of perspectives into our work. There are so many ways to accomplish this. This is where it is valuable to ask, who is not at the table? And this is why it is so important to have a public service that is reflective of those we serve.

I suspect that is why we heard from you all that "respect is for people" is a critically important value for the Government of Canada and perhaps the value where – although good work is happening in this space – frankly, we could be doing better.

As the DM Champion for Racialized Employees, one of my responsibilities is to help foster and support Equity, Diversity, Accessibility, and Inclusion across the Government. The Clerk's Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion in the Federal Public Service serves as a guide in these efforts. This Call to Action, as well as the Accessibility and 2SLGBTQ2I+ frameworks, have helped lay an important foundation that acknowledges who we are as public servants, where we need to be, and how to get there.

That said, and despite these important foundations, this is a difficult mandate and one that takes a lot of heat from those that feel it may be taking up too much space, and equally from those that feel it is not maybe taking enough space, or creating enough systemic change. It takes the most criticism for being something that inspires behaviour that is too much about "me" and not enough about "we".

I heard from many of you that you are worried that the focus on values and ethics may take away from the work on the Call to Action. But I also heard from others that the renewed focus on values and ethics provides an enduring way to continue progress on the Call to Action. I also very much heard the importance of holding ourselves accountable in upholding our values, and that no one should be exempt from this applicability.

For me, Values and Ethics, the Call to Action, and other aspects of intersectionality are intrinsically linked with each other. They reinforce each other and together require us to be very intentional about actions and progress. They also require us to be accountable to each other. I really believe this intentional action and accountability is how we will move from "me", to "we".

Like you, I'm eager to see results and I will admit that progress has been slower than expected. And yet for me, this just reinforces that we can't pull back, or lose hope. We need to continue to be thoughtful and lean in with intention.

Often, it can seem like making progress on EDI and accessibility is hard. Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where our personal and public service values don't align, but, strangely, I take solace in this challenge. Because "hard" means that we care, and public servants who care, make a difference and get it right.

Progress is never easy. It takes a lot of self reflection, courage and energy. As a deputy head, I will remain very committed to personally upholding the public service values for myself and my organization, and which means remaining open to feedback, continuous education, and change. Real change. My hope is that over today and tomorrow, you are re-energized, and feel motivated to continue to advance progress, however incremental. I believe that collectively, we can work together to realize the change we want and deserve, both for us, working within the public service, but more importantly for those we serve across Canada. Because it isn't about me. It has to be about "we". Thank you. Merci, Miigwech.

[00:08:10 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: So, I want to thank Deputy Xavier for highlighting the important linkage between values and ethics and the broader goals of equity, diversity, accessibility, and inclusion. These standards are absolutely fundamental to our mission in the public service, and we really take pride in being part of this important work. A key part of this work is actually holding ourselves accountable by fostering open dialogue and being transparent about where we succeed and where we fall short. We're now going to dive into these themes further with our next guest.

So, it is my pleasure to welcome to the stage my great colleague and friend, Gaveen Cadotte, who's Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet Public Service Renewal Secretariat at the Privy Council Office, previously Assistant Deputy Minister of Multiculturalism and Anti-racism at Canadian Heritage, and also co-chair on the Call to Action ADM task team. Gaveen, thank you for being here and guiding us through our next segment. The floor is yours.

[00:09:25 Gaveen Cadotte takes the stage and appears full screen. Text on screen: Gaveen Cadotte, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Public Service Renewal Secretariat, Privy Council Office.]

Gaveen Cadotte: Thank you, Nathalie. And many thanks to Chief Caroline Xavier. I really agree with her words around this important interconnectedness between the Call to Action for direction, and our public service Values and Ethics, because they are really intrinsically linked. And I'll get to this a little bit a bit later.

First, I just want to say I'm so happy to be here, to [the] opening the session. Nathalie, in the introduction, mentioned that today I hold the title of Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel. As of today, I am the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet responsible for the Public Service Renewal Secretariat. So, it's my first day, here in front of you, on a topic I hold really close to my heart. My team and I, including the Clerk in his role as head of the public service, keep an eye on the bigger picture of what is happening in the public service, and that also includes the Clerk's Call to Action on Anti-racism, Equity, and Inclusion. I would really like to thank my predecessor, Tim Pettipas, who led the Secretariat for the past six years. Thank you, Tim.

As Nathalie said, I also co-chair the Deputy Ministers' Task Team on the Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion.

And I want to speak a bit about the unique role of this collection of ADM colleagues that are supporting the Clerk in advancing the Call to Action. This is a very special group.

When we were calling around to see who wanted to be part of this task team, not one of them wanted to join unless we were going to hit the tough stuff. And there was a question earlier today in the morning around, what about that systemic change? And this was not a group that was going to be just looking forward to those early wins – we love the early progress and those early wins – but we want to get to this tough stuff and that systemic change.

So, over the past year, this task team has developed direction on measuring inclusion; we've provided advice on consequential accountability; and we're now turning our attention to dismantling those systemic barriers in addressing resistance and backlash. And so, I've been given the honour to introduce our esteemed keynote speaker, who will join us later.

But before we begin, I want to take a moment to hear from you. Of course, just after lunch. Got to get the crowd into it. Got to get you moving, thinking. So, we have a wooclap survey, a question that we'd like you all to participate in. So, you can either click the link, or scan the QR code, or type in, if anyone types in email addresses anymore, wooclap.com, and access the survey. And we're going to be answering the question together. What does accountability mean to you when creating a safe and inclusive workplace? Or, in a word or two: what does accountability mean to you when creating a safe and inclusive workplace?

[00:13:03 Split screen: Gaveen Cadotte, and wooclap poll results.]

Gaveen Cadotte: So, while those responses are coming in, I'm going to take a few minutes, maybe more than a few minutes, but a few minutes to talk about the Call to Action, its impact to date, and thoughts on where we go next.

[00:13:20 Gaveen Cadotte appears full screen.]

Gaveen Cadotte: So, in January 2021, the Clerk of the Privy Council issued a Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion in the federal public service and, to accelerate the pace of change, the Clerk issued the Call to Action to ensure that we are doing transformational work. So, this is the forward direction of the Call to Action. It was issued on May 9, 2023.

So, for those of you that are less familiar with the forward direction of the Call to Action, it asks deputies to set multi-year goals for recruitment, promotion and inclusion for Indigenous employees, Black, and racialized employees, and to measure progress and establish consequential accountability for results achieved. The forward direction of the Call to Action is about tackling persistent systemic barriers, some embedded in processes, practices and some within our mindsets and our behaviours. Ultimately, it is to contribute to an improved representation and inclusion in the public service to help create a culture that allows for the effective delivery of service to Canadians and advice to government.

So, reflecting back on Caroline's comments, and that deep connection between the Call to Action and the broader dialogue on Values and Ethics, it had me thinking about those different ways that those both live within each other. And so, I encourage you to think about those connection points between our Code for Values and Ethics and the Call to Action.

So, here's what comes to mind for me: respect for people. This is about treating individuals with dignity, with fairness, and valuing, really valuing, those diverse perspectives and contributions. Respect for democracy is about providing sound advice and effective implementation, which relies on a public service that is reflective of Canada's diversity, and values the diversity of Canada, and reflects it at all levels. Stewardship and integrity. That requires holding ourselves, and others, accountable for addressing those inequalities, and ensuring that policies and programs are free from racism, from discrimination, and from bias. And it means that we must do what we say we'll do, and that we'll demonstrate that it has been done.

Excellence. We cannot be excellent if we are leaving brilliant, hardworking, talented employees out of the public service, or underutilizing their talent. An inclusive workplace promotes high performance and leverages the strengths of all its employees. It is responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada.

To achieve the goals of the Call to Action, it is essential to report on the progress made. It is in this spirit that in the spring, organizations were asked to conduct a self-assessment of how they have implemented the forward direction. The summary report that was prepared following these self-assessments provides an overview of the tangible progress made and identifies areas still requiring work. I encourage you to read this report on the v-Expo platform. Thanks to the efforts of new leaders at all levels of the public service, as well as the ongoing efforts of Indigenous, Black and other racialized employees and employee community networks, the public service is stronger today compared to 2021, than when we launched the Call to Action. As a result, today we have more disaggregated data, targeted initiatives to support recruitment, promotion and talent management, we have increased access to sponsorship and mentorship opportunities, new learning and training offerings; we have anti-racism secretariats, specialized task teams that have started a dialogue with public servants across the country.

So, while focusing on improving our workplaces, we've also seen this appointment of more Indigenous, and Black, and racialized employees to, and within, executive positions. And, while this is a start, the self assessment in the questionnaires also provided us with an opportunity to identify areas where additional work still remains. And there is more work to do.

We've seen departments still struggling, figuring out how to better access desegregated data on Black employees, and that impacts our ability to really set clear goals, recruitment, promotion, and inclusion of Black employees. We've seen some momentum where we really need to embed, really embed, the Call to Action into our overall business priorities – our plans, our processes – to ensure that the work is sustained. And this work is for each and every one of us as public servants, living out our public service Values and Ethics. It's not just for our colleagues in HR, or our colleagues in the anti-racism secretariats. It's really for each and every one of us as we live out our role as public servants. And a handful of departments have already put in place consequential accountability for any lack of progress that's being made against the elements in the forward direction. And success really requires that all departments are in a similar position to put this in place.

Now, we're already starting to see a rise in backlash, a rise in resistance, maybe folks thinking they can wait this out. And we're starting to see that there's sentiments growing in tokenism and starting to see that becoming more visible. And, we have to remember why we're doing this. And this is why this conversation together, with Values and Ethics and the Call to Action, is so important.

There's no riding this out. This is our public service values. These are the people that we serve. And if you're a public service manager, and there's people, these are your teammates. It's your colleagues. They need to be included. So, no one is getting an unfair advantage out of this work. It's about levelling the playing field for those who have been left out or left behind for far too long. It's about supporting and being open and receptive to those who are at the table, and recognizing who's not at the table, and making a seat and a place for them. Not just to be there, but to participate.

As I mentioned earlier, ultimately, this is about service to government and to Canadians, consistent with the excellence we aspire to in our Values and Ethics.

This is precisely why we need to continue these conversations to find ways to remove some of the barriers that have hindered progress for a long time. One of the next steps of the Call to Action will be to delve deeper into the issue of accountability and explore ways to address the systemic barriers that impede progress. A lot of work has been undertaken to help organizations achieve the objectives set out in the forward direction of the Call to Action. There are a range of supports and tools to help individuals and organizations advance this important work, including recent organizational documentation that is also available on the v-Expo platform.

So, some of the examples of the guidance that's already available is a guide for performance measurement and consequential accountability. So, if you don't know how to do it, there's a guide already: Assessing Inclusive Behaviours in Performance Management. Another system that requires barriers, systemic barriers, to be dismantled. Check out the guide.

Establishing indicators to measure and report on inclusion outcomes. Inclusion is hard to measure. Yes, but there's a guide. So, this is just the beginning, and there's more to do to build that public service that's inclusive to Indigenous employees; Black employees; racialized employees; ethno-religious minority employees; employees with disabilities; our 2SLGBTQ2I+ employees, recognizing the intersectionality of those identities.

So, there's more work to do, and I hope you will all join us and be part of the solution. I encourage you to ask questions and reach out to your colleagues and your management team as we advance this work. And feel free to reach out to my team, my new team, in Public Service Renewal Secretariat at PCO. You know, I've talked about it. There's probably something on the wooclap for me to tour into. Remember I said I was going to talk a little bit and get back to the wooclap? I think I talked a lot.

[00:23:17 Split screen: Gaveen Cadotte, and wooclap poll results.]

Gaveen Cadotte: So, let's look and see what we are seeing in those words. What does accountability look like? Respect figures quite big in there. Oh, my goodness, I need reading glasses. It's come, it's happened. Decolonization; trust; listening and acting; non-judgmental. Uncomfortable. It is. Empathy; transparency; accountability; listening; inclusion. So, these are things that we want for ourselves, in the workplace.

[00:24:00 Gaveen Cadotte appears full screen.]

Gaveen Cadotte: That our colleagues want, that our employees want, so how might we embark on that journey and make this a reality?

Now, I've talked a lot, so I have the immense pleasure of introducing another speaker, who is Daniel Quan-Watson. Come on up. I'm going to talk about you while you come up.

[00:24:23 Camera shows a view of the audience as Daniel Quan-Watson takes the stage.]

Gaveen Cadotte: Daniel is the only person of Chinese descent to have served as a deputy minister in the federal government. Before taking a well-deserved retirement, Daniel served as Deputy Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Deputy Minister for Western Economic Diversification, Chief Human Resources Officer of the Government of Canada, and Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada, and in his various roles within and outside of the public service, Daniel has impacted the lives of many public servants and Canadians, including me.

Some of you may recall the powerful open letter that he wrote in response to the late Rex Murphy's article, which asked the question, how much are racism and discrimination actually a part of the Canadian reality? This letter stirred up a series of emotions in me, and for many others who read it. He outlined his countless experiences with micro-aggressions; overt racism; discrimination; stereotyping; and other harmful acts and acts that far too many public servants experience on a regular basis. And Daniel concluded his letter by posing the question, if my experience resonates with that of 100,000 other Canadians or more, then we are faced with a very difficult and defining question, so what are we going to do now? What a powerful question.

This question still applies today. What are we going to do now? We're doing it with initiatives such as the Call to Action; Many Voices, One Mind, and more. But there's no easing up on our efforts. We have to continue this path forward. So, without further ado, Daniel.

[00:26:30 Daniel Quan-Watson appears full screen. Text on screen: Daniel Quan-Watson, Retired Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs.]

Daniel Quan-Watson: Thank you, Gaveen. I also want to thank the Privy Council Office and everyone here today. It is truly my pleasure to be with you and to be able to talk about these important issues, about values, ethics and anti-racism issues. It is truly my pleasure to be back on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin-Anishinabeg peoples, of the ancestors, and finally, of my great friend, my wonderful colleague Gina Wilson who is welcoming us here on this land.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are many of you here today who are concerned about whether or not the current focus on values and ethics means a lessening concern about anti-racism. And I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many of you here today, or participating online, who are concerned that anti-racism is maybe a passing fad, or maybe something that will become old news sometime soon. And I also wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of you here today who are wondering if anti-racism is still a real issue in Canada's public service, or in Canada generally, and whether or not we can't just get to the real business of doing government. I hope that the three points that I'm going to be making over the next 20 minutes or so will help you to reflect on this topic, no matter where your starting point is.

The quick summary of my three points is this. First: we cannot, as a public service or as individual public servants, live up to the Code of Values and Ethics unless we understand the role of anti-racism in ensuring the full and effective involvement of every component of Canada's population, across and throughout Canada's public service. That code is a published commitment to the government that we serve to Canadians and to each other.

Second: good public policy and public administration have always been good politics for every government in Canada since 1867. No matter what else has happened, that has remained true. The public service's contributions to public policy and public administration will, in every instance, be stronger when that public service better understands Canada; Canadians; their realities; fears; aspirations; strengths; and challenges. When we don't understand those things as well as we should, we will, in every single instance, serve Canadians less well.

The third point is that no matter what role you hold in Canada's public service, if you are not improving or advancing our systemic ability to hear; to understand; to engage with; to reflect; or to respond to all of the Canadians that we serve, then you cannot possibly be advancing the values and ethics that we have committed to upholding as effectively as we need to.

I would like to talk about some lessons from our past, because I think they are important. I started my career in the federal public service 35 years ago. We've made some huge changes in that time, and I think it's important to look back on some of those things. Many of the conversations we are having today are, ultimately, not new conversations at all, and many of the realities we take for granted are things that until very recently were impossible, all things considered. When I started my career, women made up less than 10% of senior executives, of EX positions in the public service. Many public servants, very publicly and very frequently, were saying openly that appointing women to EX positions was going to ruin the public service. This was said often and openly.

Indigenous peoples and public servants of colour were very rare in most departments, and even rarer amongst management and executive ranks. Persons with disabilities, even more rare than that. In 1989, when I started, we were still in the purge period, where federal departments and institutions actively sought out to identify gay and lesbian public servants and members of those agencies and fired them en masse.

Other than the single case of the great Deputy Minister, Tom Shoyama, there had never been a Gina Wilson. There had never been a Caroline Xavier. There had never been an Anil Aurora There had never been a Harpreet Kochhar. There had never been a Nancy Hamzawi. There'd never been a Thao Pham, or a Yasmeen Laroche who you're going to see shortly. And there certainly had never been a Daniel Quan-Watson in any of those offices. I had 422 years of predecessors in my different jobs as a Deputy Minister, not one person of colour in that entire 422 years of predecessors. And there wasn't a lot of reason to believe that that was going to change back in 1989.

So, why does this matter? It matters deeply because of this simple reality. Effective public administration and policy requires at least these things in order to be successful. First: to understand, as fully and as effectively as possible, the true nature of the issue that requires attention. Secondly: the ability to understand, as fully and effectively as possible, the full range of aspirations; fears; needs; and other reality of Canadians whose lives we are affecting. And thirdly: the ability to understand, as fully and as effectively as possible, why it may be that Canadians' experience in program and service implementation is sometimes very different from what we had predicted as public servants.

Without the right people in the right rooms – and by the right people in the right rooms, I mean the people who can help us understand who we really need to engage with; the people that conduct those engagements effectively; the people who analyze what we heard in a way that actually reflects what we were told and conduct the right research; the people making the decisions; and the people responsible at all levels for going out and translating those policies into programs – without the right people in every single one of those rooms, we cannot possibly achieve the public service Code of Values and Ethics requirements for excellence, for respect, or for stewardship.

We cannot achieve the value of excellence if our failure to understand the issues at hand leaves too many Canadians feeling misunderstood, forgotten, or excluded. We cannot achieve the value of respect for people, or respect for our fellow public servants, or the Canadians who rely on us, if we fail to recognize their abilities and the values of their contributions. And we cannot achieve the value of stewardship if we invest public monies in solutions that are weaker than they should be only because of who we chose to ignore; who we chose to exclude; and who we chose to fail to see.

The numbers alone make it clear that we have too frequently not had the right people in all of those rooms where Canadian work is done. I suspect that almost everybody participating today sees the value of citizen-centred approaches to make services more effective and efficient for those who use them. But at the same time, however, how often have we conducted entire, lengthy, and complex program and policy development processes that have profound impacts on even millions of Canadians with little or even no public service representation of people with a lived connection to those Canadians' experiences and backgrounds?

I would like to talk about two examples of this dynamic. In both cases, very large policy development processes were concluded in almost total absence of critically important voices in the rooms and offices of the public service where these decisions were made. Each of these processes has had multi-generational impacts and significant impacts and costs for Canada as a country and for many individuals and communities especially.

The first of these is the way that our collective agreements have always approached part time work. When collective agreements were first negotiated in the 1960s, we are barely a decade away from female public servants being automatically fired when they were married. You heard that right. Female public servants automatically fired when they got married. There was literally not a single female executive in many departments. As a result, these collective agreements, first negotiated in 1969 but continued on in many similar ways since then, were negotiated almost exclusively by men on both the management and on the labour sides.

If you look underneath what we say in those collective agreements about part time work, you hear two philosophies. One philosophy from management is, it's too complicated to have multiple people in one position, and if you only want to work part time, you're really not that serious about working anyway. And you hear the echoes of the thoughts from the labour side, that part time work is just a ploy by management to reduce wages and to reduce benefits. But a brilliant public servant on the panel a couple of years ago, Rebecca Reed, was Regional Director General at DFO, the Pacific region at the time, said that if women had been part in sufficient numbers, on both the management and labour sides, we would have done something very different over the last 50 years. Her point was that women who faced disproportionate expectations to take on childcare, family care, and other responsibilities, and who often have to make different choices than their male colleagues in balancing all of these demands, are far less likely to see part time work as simply a sign of not being serious about their contributions.

Because of whom we excluded from those rooms and conversations, and because we didn't bring the right people into those rooms and conversations to challenge the dominant thinking of the time, Canada lost enormous talent, contributions, and growth. Things that we could otherwise have had, except for the fact that we didn't bring the right people into the room.

The second example concerns major changes in government policies regarding negotiations with First Nations and Inuit in the 80s and 90s. At the time, there were no negotiations with Métis peoples, and that is why they are not included in the example. Examples include the comprehensive claims policy, the inherent right policy, and attempts to resolve residential school survivors' individual claims. Each of these initiatives had enormous impacts on First Nations and Inuit peoples.

One thing that didn't happen, though, and that we didn't think much about at the time, was this: in all of the extensive, detailed, and lengthy public service processes that developed and approved these initiatives, First Nation, Inuit, and Métis public servants were almost entirely excluded from almost every aspect of their development. And yet we did it. And almost no one outside Indigenous communities thought anything of it.

In both cases, Canada's public service gave Canadians less than they were entitled to expect from us.

We gave dedicated, talented, and promising women who wanted to serve their country less than they were entitled to expect from us. And Canadians were robbed of their contributions. We caused harm. We served Indigenous people less well than they had a right to expect from us and provided poorer service than we would have if we had sought out and brought dedicated, professional, knowledgeable, First Nation, Inuit, and Métis public servants into all of those rooms. We would have served Indigenous peoples and all Canadians better if we had made use of the experience and power of their life experiences.

But we didn't. And there are still far too many areas where we continue to do the same. Those days are not, unfortunately, simply an historic curiosity. The great Jacqueline Rigg, who many of you know, was able to say at the end of a 30 plus year career that she recently completed as an Assistant Deputy Minister, that not one single time had she ever, as a Black woman, been interviewed or considered for a job by another person of colour. She's far alone from being able to say that today in the public service. Tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of public servants can still say today that they have never reported to a supervisor who is a person with a disability.

There are entire teams in critical roles in far too many institutions that have no representation from too many segments of Canada's population. We're still in an era of firsts, where individuals from significant groups within Canadian society are taking on certain roles for the very first time in Canada's public service. I know, because I'm one of them. Too many of us can see too many brilliant public servants from various backgrounds who are passed over again and again and again, year after year after year, and no one can ever explain why it is always that way.

If we're going to live up to our values as a public service, we either need to give clear explanations in those cases, or we need to change what we are doing. We cannot simply let these things continue. I would like to take a moment or two to underscore this point on merit. I am reiterating it because it is a critical value for the public service and because I truly adhere to the principle of merit. In saying this, I think we would do well to remember who was in the room when merit was defined and who was not.

I have often said in my speeches over the years that "leadership presence" was something that was impossible to demonstrate with a voice an octave higher than mine.

I have no doubt that those who negotiated the collective agreements in 1969, and those who did the major Indigenous policy work of the 1980s and 90s were properly appointed according to the merit principle. Technically, they were qualified. But I would ask you to consider this. What should we, as a public service, think of what qualified means, and the merit principle means, if they consistently leave millions of Canadians without the confidence that their public service includes people who understand their lives and experiences? This isn't a rejection of the concept of merit, or being qualified, quite the contrary. It's a call to be deliberate in understanding what those things need to mean.

So, in practice. In a practical sense, what can we do to ensure that Canada's public service ensures the involvement of the full and effective contributions of all Canadians and avoids gaps in our understanding and ability to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians? I propose two sets of things: the first set of things is a set of things to do. The other is a set of things not to do. Jointly, I am convinced that it can make a big difference.

The first set of things is the "to do". Anyone who has worked with me for any period of time will know that I almost always start any task with this question. Naina, you know what it's going to be. What is the problem we're trying to solve? That can seem really simplistic, but ask a group of 6, 12, 50 people what the problem is, and you will be surprised by the fact that you do not get common answers out of all. It's why it's critical to ask that question.

You'll notice so far, maybe, that I haven't used the terms equity, diversity and inclusion in my remarks. I try to never use them when talking about problems, because diversity, equity and inclusion are the solution, not the problem. If we allow ourselves to think that the problem is a lack of diversity and equity and inclusion, I believe that we mask the failures and shortcomings that we create for Canada and Canadians by choosing not to bring resources and perspective to achieving what Canada and Canadians expect us to do for them.

The problem isn't that there are people who are unhappy about not having opportunities given to them. The problem is that we have too frequently failed to bring those talents and abilities to the places where they are most needed in order for us to to succeed. You get very different places depending on how you define the issuer problem. I recommend that every public servant, certainly every executive manager, supervisor, policy analyst, and operational design professional ask three questions.

First: where has the group, or role for which you are responsible, served Canada and Canadians less well than you would have if you had brought different people to the table? Whatever your answer is to that question, it's telling. If you're going to say that no matter who I have not brought here and what gaps I've had, it doesn't make any difference to the service I pride Canada and Canadians. That's pretty telling. If you've never thought, though, about this question before, it's probably a good thing to ask yourself why? Why is it that I went through as much of my career as I have so far, without ever asking what the impact is of the people I chose not to bring to the work that I'm doing?

Every executive at CIRNAC was required to ask that question as part of their performance management cycle. It took us over a year to actually understand what it means. It wasn't something that people had talked about before. In the end though, we said things out loud that allowed us to try to fix them and that had been there for a very long time, and we simply assumed somebody else would fix. But the act of saying out loud what the impacts are of our decisions not to include people, created change. What this exercise showed us was this: There is a real cost to Canada, to Canadians, when the public service doesn't pay attention to the impacts of the perspectives we've excluded in the many rooms and offices in which we do our work, and when we don't take active steps to address these situations as quickly as possible.

The second question: who is it that we have consistently failed to attract, retain, and promote through the systems and processes for which we are responsible? The issue of promoting within that is a very important one. If you're an executive or manager, ask yourself about the relative progression of staff from different groups, especially from the groups that are underrepresented, and ask if the patterns you see will allow for the full participation and involvement required to avoid the shortcomings that we talked about in the first question. If you can't answer that question positively, then fix it. Nobody else is going to fix your hiring, your team building, or your team capacity issues for you. It's up to you.

Third question we need to ask ourselves, it's a very difficult one, is what is it that is going on in our organization that makes it difficult or impossible for those we most need to hire, retain, or promote to join, stay, or encourage others to join our organizations? Last question is not something that you ever take on lightly, but it is critically important. As a Deputy Minister for nearly 15 years, including three years as Chief Human Resources Officer for the Government of Canada, I've had to deal with more than my fair share of harassment and discrimination cases. A common factor in almost all of these cases was that the abusive, discriminatory and harassing behaviour had been going on for years and years, and no one had stopped it. I will refer here to a few specific examples, not to embarrass anyone, but because these kinds of situations are much more common than acknowledged and because they cause pain and deep damage in the public service. Moreover, these situations profoundly harm our ability to give Canada and its citizens what we have committed to providing.

Recently, we've seen reports of public servants having to repeatedly explain to those in authority over them that the use of clearly derogatory and racist terminologies has no place in the public service. We've seen employees spend years and years having to either fight to be treated with even the minimums of respect and requirements of the law and their collective agreement, or to quit the public service. We've seen instances of employees posting racist posters in busy lunchrooms, only to find that the only single employee on that floor created a formal complaint out of it. Only one employee. Fortunately, these situations don't happen everywhere, every day, but they happen more frequently than any of us is comfortable saying, even for those who live these things as targets of them.

This is where I want to get to the set of things that we need not to do if we're to live up to our Code of Values and Ethics, and if we are to take the call to anti-racism seriously. If you are not or have never been the target of these kinds of attacks, success is not limited to being able to say: I have never witnessed this kind of thing. When you see things that may be harassment, find ways to support those who were targeted. Find ways to make it safe for others to speak about what they experienced. Understand that for many public servants, recognizing or speaking about such instances has perhaps never been safe. It may, in fact, have been very dangerous to admit, to speak up, or to complain. Be prepared for the fact that it may be an uncomfortable conversation for many reasons. But whatever you do, don't just turn or walk away. When the rest of us turn or walk away, the message to those who have felt singled out, discriminated against, or harassed is that if, capital IF, there is a problem, it's your problem, not mine.

This is not a culture that cultivates the breadth of skills, life experience, perspectives, and strengths that Canada needs and requires of its public service. A public service that seeks to be professional and nonpartisan must take up the challenges of ensuring that it is capable of addressing the gaps and cultural challenges that it may have in order to serve its citizens, and their government, as effectively as possible. One of the challenges that Canada's public service had made improvements on, but where much work remains to be done, is ensuring that it does not hold back or exclude some of the very elements that will guarantee that it succeeds more fully.

In conclusion, I'm optimistic about the future of Canada's public service because the journey I witnessed over the last 35 years makes me optimistic, and because of the skill, dedication, and aspiration of those who carry that responsibility today into the future. If you arrived here today worried about whether or not talking about values and ethics means moving away from anti-racism, I hope that you take from my remarks that Canada's public service cannot possibly live up to those values, especially those of respect for people, stewardship, and excellence if it doesn't.

If you arrived here today worried that anti-racism might be a passing fad or fading priority, I hope that you'll see from my remarks that better public policy and better public administration has always been better politics for every government since 1867.

If you arrived here today thinking that we've talked about these issues enough and that we've moved beyond them, I ask you to ask yourself what gaps are around us all and what cost do they bring to Canada and Canadians?

And finally, I would ask you this one final question that Gaveen has raised earlier, so what are you going to do now? Thank you.

[00:55:22 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Wow. So, first of all, I just want to thank again, Gaveen, for setting the stage so clearly and candidly, and Daniel as well, for your very profound and thought-provoking reflections. And we're not just going to let you get away. You're going to remain on stage for the next part of the discussion, so I invite you to take a seat. And just a reminder that this next panel discussion will also be followed by a Q and A, live and virtual. Just a reminder to go to wooclap.com and enter the code VEOCT, as you start thinking of your questions.

[00:56:00 Camera alternates between views of Nathalie Laviades Jodouin, the panelists as they take their seats on stage, and Nadia Theodore in a video chat panel.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: I'm now going to invite our panelists to join us, starting with our moderator, Paul Thompson, Deputy Minister at Employment and Social Development Canada. Followed by Patrick Boucher, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister at Public Safety Canada. And joining us remotely is Nadia Theodore, head of the Permanent Mission of Canada in Geneva, Ambassador and permanent representative to the World Trade Organization, the UN Trade and Development International Trade Centre, and World Intellectual Property Organization.

So, with that, Deputy Minister Thompson, over to you.

[00:56:50 Camera alternates between views of Paul Thompson, the panelists, and Nadia Theodore in a video chat panel. Text on screen: Paul Thompson, Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development.]

Paul Thompson: Okay. Thank you very much. First of all, a big thank you to Daniel for your passionate and motivating observations. That's a great starting point, I think, for our discussion this afternoon. It is truly an honour to be here with three distinguished leaders for a very important discussion. Perhaps before we start with the description, I could share some perspectives on the same theme that Daniel mentioned, the importance of an organizational perspective and an individual perspective.

When we think about our organizational responsibilities, these are profoundly important, and they vary from organization to organization. Obviously, in my case, I spent many years at Employment and Social Development, where diversity and inclusion are quite central to the mandate. I'd say they're hardwired right into our raison d'être, whether it's the policies we work on, the programs we design, or the services we deliver. For example, on the policy side, we had a task force that recently did a full-on examination of the Employment Equity Act. Quite dated. Needs desperate modernization to meet the challenges ahead. We also look regularly at poverty in Canada and notice its incidence, which is quite unequal, uneven across the country in terms of equity deserving groups.

When it comes to programs, like many other departments, very specific programs aimed at targeting issues around inclusion. We've got longstanding relationships with Indigenous organizations to deliver skills in employment training. More recent relationships, co-developing an early learning and childcare system, so many, many programs. We're developing a new disability benefit to support that community. So, those are profoundly important. And, Daniel, as you've noted, we can't purport to be a well functioning service organization unless we reflect the population we serve. So, this agenda is without question the right thing to do, but it's also a business imperative for the public services, as I think you eloquently pointed out.

So, that's kind of the organizational side of it but I think individually, as public servants, I'd like to get into this too. We have got tremendous opportunities and responsibilities as well. I've often thought about the fact that we're at the forefront of a learning journey of Canadian society. We have access to tools and information and insights that we can take advantage, and that's certainly been my experience. I was reflecting with Daniel before we got on, I've had the opportunity over my career to visit many Indigenous communities, dozens. But Daniel and I happened to be at Millbrook, First Nation in Nova Scotia when Prime Minister Harper issued his apology, the government's apology, to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit for residential schools. A powerful learning moment for me, and I consider that as a big part of my learning journey and subsequent passion for the Reconciliation agenda. I do think it's important that we reflect on these opportunities we have to learn more. Whether it's about Reconciliation or the resources during Black History Month that we can learn about, these are great opportunities to learn more. Maybe lastly, as an individual – and we can get into this, too – I certainly benefited a lot in my career from mentorship and think that's a profoundly important instrument that we have in our toolkit for moving forward and advancing the careers of others.

So, with that as a little bit of context, I'd like to dive in. Maybe we can start with a theme that you were referencing, Daniel, maybe I'll start with Patrick, and then Nadia. You mentioned the risk, Daniel, of this being a buzzword or just a slogan. Patrick, do you have thoughts about how we can make this more of a permanent and enduring agenda?

[01:01:16 Patrick Boucher appears full screen. Text on screen: Patrick Boucher, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada.]

Patrick Boucher: Yes, thanks very much for the question. And I'd just like to start by acknowledging as well that we're gathered here on beautiful unceded Algonquin territory, and I really just want to acknowledge everyone in the room for being here. I think the numbers are tremendous in terms of registration numbers, and that's great because I think that speaks to the importance of these conversations here today and again tomorrow.

So, thanks to everyone for being part of that. Yes, the whole buzzword thing is, I think, a live debate. And I would just say that when I think of that, obviously as an institution, as a public service, I think we've been quite clear that we're taking that principled approach here. And that principled approach is very much anchored in the values that we live and breathe every day within the public service.

But if we're really going to breathe life into that vision, I think we really need to focus in on the mindset shift that I think needs to occur. Getting to the place where, whether it's managers, executives, employees, recognize the value in this. And I say that in the sense of making sure that as a manager, we have the most high performing team that we could have. Recognizing that diversity of thought, lived experiences, having that as part of your team, as a manager, makes you a better manager; allows you to better deliver on the things that are being asked of you; makes us, I think, better as a public service to be able to deliver on important priorities that we're being asked to deliver on by the government.

So, I think that's where we need to get to. We have a very clear vision. I think as an institution, we've been quite clear about that. But getting to that mindset shift where it's not just a buzzword, where there's true value, and everybody understands that value. I think if we could get to that point, and I think we're making tremendous progress, we'll be a better public service.

Paul Thompson: So it actually takes root in our culture, and not just a passing...

Patrick Boucher: It becomes part of our DNA. It actually gets ingrained within our values and ethics.

[01:03:30 Camera alternates between views of Paul Thompson, the panelists, and Nadia Theodore in a video chat panel.]

Paul Thompson: That's great. Nadia, what would you like to add to this question?

[01:03:36 Nadia Theodore appears full screen. Text on screen: Nadia Theodore, Head of Mission in Geneva and Ambassador to the WTO.]

Nadia Theodore: Thanks. I hope everybody can hear me. And it's great to be virtual. I wish I was there in person with you all, but great to participate virtually.

Maybe I would just start by saying that I think that it's important for us to acknowledge the reasons why people would think that this is a buzzword or a passing phase or something that is not for the long haul. And I think that it's because – I mean, when you listened to Daniel's keynote and he spoke about where the public service was when he started versus where it is today, it struck me that when he was talking about some of the firsts, and some of the progress, those firsts and progress were quite recent.

So, when you mention Deputy Xavier, Chief Xavier, she became an Associate Deputy Minister four years ago, so very recently. When you talk about the evolution of executives, and the executive ranks, being representative of the Canadians and the Canada that we live in, much of the progress has indeed been quite recent, and, in fact, has been due to world events that drove – world and domestic events, I would say – that drove people to have no choice but to do something because of the strong voices within the organizations that we lead as public service leaders.

And so, if you think about that context, it is no wonder that as the world continues to evolve; as world and domestic issues continue to pile on; as things get ever more complex; as we come out of a pandemic where we hired record numbers of public servants that we now have to teach and bring into the fold in terms of what it means to be a public service, which is a new challenge, it is no wonder that people think, well, how are we going to do all of these things all simultaneously with the same rigor for it all? Something's got to give. And what's going to give? Well, probably the thing that maybe nobody wanted to do anyway, and they felt that they just needed to do it because of world and domestic events that pushed us.

So, if we're being honest with ourselves, that is the context. And that is probably why people think that it is a buzzword and think that it is a passing phase. And I say that because I do think that understanding where that sentiment comes from within our organizations is key to then figuring out what we do about it. Because to me, when you understand where that might come from, you then understand that the key to overcoming that sentiment and changing mindset, quote unquote, is really about building and maintaining trust. Building and maintaining trust amongst our employees, and building and maintaining trust amongst leadership, amongst the leadership ranks that also have a heavy lift and a heavy learning curve in order to really sustain the effort that is needed to get where we want to go when we talk about building inclusive workplaces, and the workplaces that we want to see in the public service.

And so, to me, that's the most important thing, is to really not forget the context and not forget the why of why people might be feeling that this is a passing phase or a buzzword. And I think that that will lead us to really digging down, doing the work. Ne lâchez pas as we would say in French, like, don't let go, keep moving, and understand that pushback is inevitable, but pushback is actually part of progress. So, I'll leave it there for now.

[01:08:33 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: Okay. Thank you very much for these thoughts. That's a very good point. Maybe we can move on to barriers and maybe you can start with Daniel. What are the systemic barriers to equity, diversity and inclusion and how can we remove them?

[01:08:53 Daniel Quan-Watson appears full screen.]

Daniel Quan-Watson: I think the biggest barrier, there are several, but the biggest one is the question:what is the problem we're facing? Is it because people keep complaining because they would like to have jobs but did not get them? Is it because there are gaps in the way the public service has been set up, so that we are not delivering programs and services at the level we should? I think we could use the concept of buzzwords only if there is no real problem. We never talk about buzzwords for long, at least when we're facing a problem that we recognize as a real problem.

So, I think that's the big question. And I have enormous respect for what has been said about taking methods for inclusion into account. This is a very good thing. But we are in government. If we ever went to the Treasury Board, to the Department of Finance, if we said, well the answer is money. Just give us more money and things will be fixed. We would be thrown out of the room immediately. We're told, but what's the problem? Define it. What is the gap you're trying to fill?

So, in my opinion, if we take inclusion into consideration without accounting for the costs of exclusion, we'll never get there. And for me, that's the biggest barrier, it's clarity on that first question.

[01:10:38 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: Nadia, do you have anything to share concerning barriers?

[01:10:48 Nadia Theodore appears full screen.]

Nadia Theodore: In my opinion, yes, I completely and absolutely agree with what Daniel said. I also think that another significant barrier for us is that, honestly we are just human, and change is difficult. Making changes in a large organization is difficult for managers and for employees as well. It's very difficult to see changes and not think: what does this mean for me? This is something that is completely—I always tell my employees and even my friends, my colleagues—that this is completely normal. We are all human. Then I think the barrier—the pushback—that we're dealing with, we're dealing with the fact that there are people asking questions, like: what does this initiative that gives a helping hand to a specific group mean to me? What does it mean to me that you have a selection process that is just for another group here? We consider these questions to be bad questions.

In my opinion, these are questions that are completely normal in an organization, to have people asking questions: what does this mean for me? Then it's up to us, the managers, the leaders in the organizations, to explain to people what our values are as a public service, why we do things that way. Giving the facts, giving the data points to show people that this is why we do what we do. This is why we strongly support the idea of a public service that is based on values of equity, diversity and inclusion. It's important, not just for policies but for programs, for everything we do. And I find that a considerable barrier is that, as good Canadians—because I lived in the United States for a long time and I can see the difference—as good Canadians, we don't like to have conflicts, we don't like to have difficult conversations, to have conversations with people when we're talking about difficult subjects. When people can ask tough questions, then the questions can be answered honestly, and as a team. Yes.

[01:14:02 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: Great. Thanks very much, Nadia. Patrick, do you have anything to add about your perspective on barriers?

[01:14:31 Patrick Boucher appears full screen.]

Patrick Boucher:  Well, I think a lot of good points have been made. Maybe what I could add is that, you know, in a very practical way, as a public service, if we want to try to identify barriers, address them, put plans in place to try to overcome them, I think it's really important that we can look at this from different perspectives. So, recruitment; I think that would be a set of barriers that we could tackle together as a public service. It's all well and good if you recruit people, but you can't keep them; so retention would be another aspect that we should target. In his speaking points, Daniel talked about talent development. So how can we—whether it's an Indigenous employee joining the public service, how can we guide this individual, foster their development, offer them opportunities throughout their career. Then ultimately, it also comes back to talent management. So just from a very practical perspective, I think that would be the approach to take. And I know that we're doing this as a public service. I think it's very important. It's very important to not just boil the ocean on this, to really break it down in different buckets that we could address.

[01:15:58 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: Very good. Patrick, maybe I'll stick with you. I mentioned the profoundly important Reconciliation journey that we're on as a country and our responsibilities as Canadians, as public servants. There are some links to the inclusion agenda, but that Reconciliation has a very important life of its own in the life of the country. Can you share some reflections on what you see the links with diversity, inclusion and what stands out as important distinctions as well for you?

[01:16:32 Patrick Boucher appears full screen.]

Patrick Boucher: Sure. So, I would say that when you think about EDI or the Calls to Action, I see those as very effective means of advancing Reconciliation within the public service, so I think it serves to advance that. And I'm really deliberately saying within the public service, because as an institution, as a federal public service, we obviously have a huge role to play in facilitating Reconciliation across the country, in supporting society to advance Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. But how are we going to do that if we don't get our own house in order first? So, I think if we're going to do our part as a partner in reconciliation, and many provincial governments, obviously Indigenous people, municipalities, citizens, all have a role to play in reconciliation. So, as an institution, if we're going to play our role, I think we need to also look at Reconciliation within the public service with our Indigenous employees.

So, this question really brings me back to Many Voices, One Mind: A Pathway to Reconciliation. And, for those who aren't acquainted with it, this was a tremendous piece of work that was led under Gina Wilson back in 2017, and that we continue to implement to this day. And in essence, that was really to identify barriers to Indigenous employment within the public service. There was a lot of engagement with existing public servants, Indigenous public servants, past Indigenous public servants, to really understand why they left the public service. And I remember the stats back then were very clear. I mean, we were doing an okay job in recruitment, but we were losing Indigenous employees much faster than we were recruiting them, which really got us to think about zeroing in on those barriers; identifying solutions to it; providing advice on possible steps that as an institution; enterprise wide solutions that could be taken; but also advice to deputies on how, within their own authorities, within their departments, actions that they could be taking.

So, all that to say is, I think there's a direct link between the work that we're doing on EDI, on calls to action, even the work that we're talking about today over these two days around Values and Ethics that really serve to advance Reconciliation as a whole.

[01:19:11 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: That's great. That's helpful. Daniel, you've devoted many years to this question as well. Anything you want to add to Patrick's answer?

[01:19:18 Daniel Quan-Watson appears full screen.]

Daniel Quan-Watson: Yes, just very quickly, every single one of us in this room has been judged under the Public Service Employment Act to be qualified to govern Canada, to put it simply. But just think about all your time in elementary, secondary, undergraduate and graduate school. What would the total number of minutes of education you had about Indigenous peoples' contributions to Canada add up to? For me, it's 15 minutes, ten of which was talking about John A. MacDonald sending the army to put an end to Métis rights discussions in Saskatchewan <inaudible>. Not one second of it was from an Indigenous perspective.

So, how similar is that to who you are and how you were raised? What messages did you take about the importance of Indigenous people and their contributions to this country when all of those institutions were preparing you for that moment when under the Public Service Employment act, out of 40 million Canadians, they said, you small 300,000 people, you're the ones who are most qualified to govern this country. And if you think about that, to me it's a good place to start thinking about what Reconciliation needs to mean.

[01:20:39 Camera alternates between Paul Thompson full screen, and the panelists seated on stage.]

Paul Thompson:  Maybe a question for Nadia. Daniel spoke about the importance of accountability and consequences. Perhaps you could share some perspectives on this question, on the link between accountability, consequences and our goals for equity, diversity and inclusion.

[01:21:06 Nadia Theodore appears full screen.]

Nadia Theodore: Well, without sounding maybe too cute about it, to me that the link seems obvious. I think Daniel said it during his keynote that – or maybe it was Gaveen that said it when she was speaking, I can't remember – but we set objectives and then we hold ourselves accountable for those. And that's not a new concept. I mean, we like to now make fancy words for everything and package it nicely so that maybe it sounds like we're doing something different, so we don't have to say that we didn't make it work the first time around, because now it's different and now we're going to do it better.

But frankly, accountability and consequences are part of what has been a core value of the public service and of any workplace. And, I think that, frankly, if we are being honest with ourselves, I think that over the years and decades, as things have gotten heavier and harder and more complicated, it is easier to make accountability more complicated. And to almost layer on accountability the same way that we layer on approval levels, the same way that we layer on complexity of decision making. Sometimes it's needed and sometimes it's not.

And what I would say about accountability and consequences, as it relates to values and ethics, and as it relates to anything that we do in the public service, is that it is incumbent on each one of us, whether you are an individual contributor in your organization or whether you are a manager or whether you are a senior leader, to understand what it is that you are accountable for in your day to day work, both from a work perspective, from a deliverable perspective, but also from a values perspective. How you show up in your work. The how of your work, not the what of your work. Figure that out. And it might mean figuring it out in terms of talking to yourself. Maybe it's talking to your friends, maybe it's talking to your managers, talking to your colleagues, but you have to figure it out, and then you have to start by building those accountability measures in for yourself, because you value yourself as a public servant, and then your manager and each level of your managers need to do the same thing.

And frankly – people say I'm too blunt to be a diplomat, but I will be blunt – we just have to get on with it and do it, frankly. And really and truly remind ourselves that we are in a period where lack of trust for public institutions is at an all time high. And that, again, sounds quite trite. Trite, I think, is the word. It sounds like it's just a throwaway line, and then you kind of continue on what you're doing. But it has real consequences. It has real consequences for who we are as a public service, for what we get to do and what we get to influence as public servants, and for the future of the country and what we are responsible for as public servants in this country. And I think that at the core of fixing that, what we control is how we do our jobs and how we show up. And that's the accountability and the consequence part.

[01:25:02 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: That's great and thank you for being blunt. It's appreciated. We are approaching the end of our time. I know we've got questions coming in on wooclap, but maybe I would like to just do one final round with the panel before we go to the open questions. Daniel, you talked about the challenges of being the first, or amongst the few who are the first. Anything more that you could share, like advice for individuals that find themselves in those situations?

[01:25:43 Daniel Quan-Watson appears full screen.]

Daniel Quan-Watson: Two things. First of all, if you are one of the first or one of the few, and you feel that – and that can come from any number of different backgrounds and perspectives – it's not in your imagination that you're carrying extra weight. And just know that and understand that. And when it seems harder for you than for other people around you, you're not necessarily wrong. So don't beat yourself up too much about that.

But the other thing I'll say is this, I only succeeded as much as I succeeded in my career because there were some fantastic people from across the entire spectrum of the public service who helped me out and supported me and gave me advice and guidance and gained support at different points in time. And if you see someone who's the first, someone who's the few, someone who's out there on their own, be a support, you have no idea what impact that will have and for how long.

[01:26:43 Camera alternates between Paul Thompson full screen, and the panelists seated on stage.]

Paul Thompson: Indeed. Great advice. Okay, so we do have questions coming in, so rather than dominating with my questions, I am going to pull some from the wooclap platform, a reminder for folks that they can submit questions through wooclap.com, and I'll maybe look for some volunteers on the panel to take on these questions.

So, the first one is, in an asymmetrical society, how do you ensure that values and ethics do not get used as soft power to silence marginalized groups from seeking equity rights? So, who wants to, as we digest that question, it's deep. Daniel, I'm going to put you on the spot.

[01:27:32 Daniel Quan-Watson appears full screen.]

Daniel Quan-Watson: Sure, thanks.

Paul Thompson: Because that was our deal, that you get the hardest questions.

Daniel Quan-Watson: I would say that you make sure you have the right discussions to get the right values. The values that we have in the code of public service, make sure that we don't get there. It gives the platform to make sure we don't. In fact, I think the entire thrust of what I was saying is if you've got the right values, you see them the right way, you can hold the institution to account for what it promised itself and promised others. I think we have that here. But if you get the wrong values, then you're in trouble.

Paul Thompson: Yes. Patrick, you'd agree with that?

[01:28:05 Patrick Boucher appears full screen.]

Patrick Boucher: Yes, and maybe just to double down on that as well. I think it comes down to something that you raised in terms of that starting question, what are we trying to fix here, and making sure that we stay focused on treating this as any other business priority, that we tackle as a public service that we're very good at.

[01:28:25 Camera alternates between each panelist full screen, and the panelists seated on stage.]

Paul Thompson: Yes. We have discipline and rigor with how we approach.

Patrick Boucher: Exactly.

Paul Thompson: So, why don't we bring this?

Patrick Boucher: Whatever government priority it is, we're good at it. We set a plan in place. We're clear on our vision. We resource it, we measure ourselves, and we hold ourselves to account, so let's not make this anything but that. It's a priority for the very obvious reasons that we've talked about, and let's treat it as any other business priority that we tackle on a day-in, day-out basis across the public service.

Paul Thompson: Very good. Nadia, anything on this before we go to question two?

[01:28:56 Nadia Theodore appears full screen.]

Nadia Theodore: Yes. Maybe just quickly, and maybe to be the contrarian or to maybe give a different perspective. I think that sometimes you won't be able to guard against that.

Again, I think that if we're being honest with ourselves, there will be times when the public service values – because remember we were talking about not our personal values – the public service values that, in our jobs we are accountable for, will inevitably clash with what a group of individuals, one individual, rightly might believe is something that they deserve to have, either in the workplace, or just by virtue of them being a person. And I think that that's to be expected.

I'll give you an example. I was the Consul General to the Southeast USA in Atlanta. Based in Atlanta, responsible for six southeast states. I was also only the second Black female Head of Mission at the time to ever be appointed, and at the time, the only Black female Head of Mission. And I was in the United States at the time that Ahmaud Arbery and others were murdered. I wanted to go out and march. I wanted to participate in the marches. I wanted to participate in the letter writing. I wanted to participate in all of the civic and civil action that was taking place, because I am a Black person living at a time when it was, to me, very critical that I do something. The values that I signed up for when I decided to be Head of Mission, when I decided to represent Canada abroad, meant that I could not march anywhere. I could not take part in a letter writing campaign. That is a clash. And I think that we have to be honest with ourselves about it. I had to be honest with myself about that clash and decide how I was going to reconcile that.

And so, I just think that we do have to be honest with ourselves, that it's not always going to be as simple as, if we get the right values and if we do it right, then it's going to end up right. There will be clashes. There will be things that will be difficult, that will be very messy. And I think that people have to be prepared for that and again, be prepared to have those difficult conversations and to make those choices as they present themselves.

[01:32:10 Camera alternates between Paul Thompson full screen, and the panelists seated on stage.]

Paul Thompson: Indeed, thank you for that. So, it is inevitable that our values and ethics were never intended to provide a crystal-clear pathway to any particular. It's a framework within which we analyze situations, and those kinds of clashes are indeed inevitable, and we have to navigate them and provide public servants with the tools to do that.

I think now we've taken a few questions from the platform. I'm going to turn to the audience. We've got a question right here.

[01:32:40 Camera shows the panelists seated on stage.]

Audience member: Hi there. I just wanted to pick up on what Nadia was talking about when it comes to truth, because when it comes to diversity and inclusion and having more diverse voices at the public service table, that's happening, not because Canada thought it was a good idea, it was the relentless advocacy of marginalized people that made that happen. And so, my question is, how do we get to a place where we can more truthfully acknowledge when we miss the mark as an institution? Because we're not good at saying when we've missed the mark, we're not good at identifying failure. And then where do we go from there? We'll cover it up. We'll say, oh, we continue to do X, Y and Z. Or, yes, we're working on it, but we never come out and truly say, yes, we missed it. We failed on this, but here's what we're going to do to do better. How do we get to that as an institution?

Paul Thompson: Nadia, that was directed at you, so I'll turn to you.

[01:33:51 Nadia Theodore appears full screen.]

Nadia Theodore: It was? Okay, sorry. Well, listen, I mean, nobody likes to admit that they failed. Again, we have to be honest. It's like, there's no one who likes to say: Ah, I completely messed up the plan and I failed. So, if only, when we have consequences, when we have this kind of accountability, it allows us to be a little more comfortable saying: you know what, it didn't work this time. We have to try something different. And I also think that for the public service, especially today.

In these times – I feel like my mother when I say that – it costs a lot more when we fail. You know, the speed at which information flows, the speed at which people know who did it and who didn't do it and make up the stories around it. So, it's no wonder that many times the idea is about to be just very risk adverse. It's no wonder. And we also have to acknowledge that.

And I would say to you, and I say this from a point of actually wearing a public service, senior leader, public service hat, don't be afraid to start small. You know, it doesn't have to be, all of a sudden, we're admitting our failures around everything and being big and bold on every issue. Start small, start by identifying one or two projects, one or two initiatives where you say to your employees, or as an employee, you say to your manager: Okay, this is going to be the initiative where we're going to try, and if we fail, we're going to decide that we are going to communicate internally exactly how we failed, why we failed, and we're going to have real conversations about it. Choose a couple, and be very clear and specific about it, and then double click on it and drive it.

Because if you try and create a culture of a fail-fast culture in the public service, just like that, all of a sudden, across the board, I just believe that it's too much, frankly. It's too much for us, it's too much for everybody, and we need practice, and we need to start small. So, that would be my practical suggestion, would be to identify one or two initiatives where you have decided that when you fail, you're going to be loud and proud about it and identify it from the start and then follow it through.

[01:36:55 Camera alternates between Paul Thompson full screen, and the panelists seated on stage.]

Audience member: Great. Thank you. We can take another question in the room. I think we've got another question, and if you have a particular panelist that you'd like to direct it to, feel free. Otherwise, I will exercise my prerogative.

2nd Audience member: Thank you so much. I wanted to preface my question just by mentioning I'm a neurodivergent person, so I'm going to try and phrase my question respectfully, and that is my intention, so I just hope that you understand that and take my question as such. I'm noticing that persons with disabilities are not being included quite as much in the conversation as other marginalized groups. And I'm sorry, I did have a point, and.

Paul Thompson: Happy to come back if you want to take a pause.

2nd Audience member: Yes, if you don't mind. I'm sorry.

Paul Thompson: We'll just take a pause. It's fine. And we'll take another question, and then I'll come right back to you, and maybe we can do two questions at once. So, is there another question that we can turn to in the back? And we'll do two at once. There's one in the front here.

3rd Audience member: Hi. I have a question. So, we're hearing a lot of great ideas, and people will want to go back to their departments and support Call to Action, and my question relates to how to do that. So, for example, I'm a researcher. I study ethics, and one of the things that the research shows is that information-based interventions don't always work, and, in fact, they can actually have the opposite impact. So, there's research showing that some multicultural efforts have actually increased negative perceptions about racial differences and biological differences, that sort of thing. My question for the panel is, what do you recommend government departments and agencies do when they go back to have a meaningful approach to dealing with the Call to Action?

Paul Thompson: Very good. And I don't know if we want to do a check in on our previous question on how we ensure persons with disabilities are prominent in our Call to Action, or do we want to leave it at that? Maybe we'll just be leaving it?

2nd Audience member: Sorry. Thank you so much. So, my question was, like I mentioned, that persons with disabilities, I'm noticing, are just not quite included in this conversation as much right now. And there is sort of an issue with people who have multiple disabilities. And some disabilities are maybe more visible, some are not visible, and some people may develop disabilities or may need some support. So even if, for example, a person can create a program, that a person without disabilities can create a program for the public service, for example, and then they themselves develop a disability. They, I don't know, get a concussion, they break their leg, they develop arthritis or something, and then suddenly they need the support. And so, they could potentially create a program that will later be a disadvantage to them as well.

And there's also different layers of that. A person, like, for example, a woman with a disability, has multiple layers of struggles, being a woman in the public service as well as being a person with disabilities. And it is harder to get accommodations, I think, as a woman, because some certain types of disabilities that women have, or certain – I'm using the term woman a little bit more loosely – people, medically, women, aren't taken necessarily as seriously all the time. And so that also causes issues with things like filling out the forms necessary by a doctor to get the accommodations that one needs. And it's just a very complicated and there's so many different layers to it.

And there's also types of disabilities, like neurodivergencies, that tend to get ignored in, or maybe not ignored but not considered, in the conversation. Things like when we talk about values and ethics, some people might think, oh, to be respectful, you have to phrase things in a specific way, where a person who is neurodivergent might not be intending to be disrespectful, they're just trying to be honest in their question. And their question or their comment is coming from a true place of trying to help or from a true place of curiosity. But it is heard or seen from the lens of, oh, they're just trying to push buttons, or they're just trying to be mean, and so they're not actually heard. And so, there's that, you don't feel welcome in the conversation because of that.

I know I kind of mentioned a lot of different things in there, but my point is, what are we doing to include all of the different types of perspectives of people with disabilities? How are we making sure that people with disabilities in all of the different forms, and also just people who are marginalized, who fit into multiple different categories? I'm using that term categories a little loosely, but like that, everyone is being heard and everything is being taken into consideration.

Paul Thompson: Very good. So, we've got two profoundly important questions here, one on inclusions of persons with disabilities. This is one that's near and dear to my heart. I talked about the importance of being in a service organization, and the slogan, nothing about us without us is much more than a slogan. It's critically important we design services with persons with disabilities in mind. I don't know if any panelists want to do a quick reflection on that one or this other interesting question we had on research objectives, and then we're going to do a quick wrap up after that. Patrick, do you want to?

[01:43:24 Patrick Boucher appears full screen.]

Patrick Boucher: Yes, I'm happy to jump in on that first question that was asked. You know, my advice would be just go back and get involved. I mean, I think there's a lot of opportunities, there's a lot of things happening across various departments, real tangible initiatives that are being undertaken at the departmental level. But I truly believe everybody has a role to play. As an individual, get involved. And whether it's from a research perspective, well, that's something that you could bring to the table, and I think they would be very useful.

Of course, make sure that, to your point, nothing for us without us, make sure that you're engaging, whether it's Indigenous employee networks within your departments or other networks, make sure that you're working with them and engaging with them as allies to try and find some of these solutions. So just quick advice on that.

[01:44:11 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: That's great. That successful engagement internally leads to more appropriate services for Canadians. Maybe just turn to, for some last reflections to the panel on any last comments you want to share on perhaps what success looks like or what you aspire to seeing as outcomes. Nadia, do you want to go first, including thoughts?

[01:44:38 Nadia Theodore appears full screen.]

Nadia Theodore: Yes, maybe I'll use my couple of minutes, maybe, to address the question that somebody asked about disabilities and how we [could] do a little bit better on that, just because I think that it warrants a little bit, a couple more minutes. And I would just say to you that from my perspective, it's not only just about having voices heard. I really do think that when you're talking about multiple layers of inclusion and multiple layers of giving our employees what they need to survive and thrive in the workplace and deliver for us, it really does take, as Patrick said, folks to get involved.

And, from the employee side, but also from the manager and leader side, I really do think that leaders need to make sure that they are watching out for who is not included. And listening and pushing hard when you hear a question or somebody raise their hand and say – or not raise their hand, there's somebody continuously who's not raising their hand, who you're not hearing from, who is continuously maybe being told that they're being disrespectful – double click on that a little bit. Like, really, are they? Or is that a perception? Is that something that we are not giving that person in order for them to participate fruitfully in whatever we're trying to do. Is it an "us" problem, or "them" problem, or a systemic problem?

And so, I really do think that if we ask those types of questions, then it doesn't have to be about making sure that we include everybody in every line and making sure that we say all the right words and use all the right buzzwords so that everybody feels, quote unquote, included, that it really is about making space and creating space and having spaces so that people can raise their issues and managers can engage with people, as it were, when it were, in a way that truly allows people to thrive in the workplace. Thanks. And thanks for inviting me.

[01:46:55 Paul Thompson appears full screen.]

Paul Thompson: Great. Thank you, Nadia. Turns for some questions, quick concluding remarks. Patrick, anything you want to conclude on in terms of what success looks like?

[01:47:02 Patrick Boucher appears full screen.]

Patrick Boucher: Yes, I think for me it's that we continue to really drive this as a business priority, as we spoke about earlier on in the conversation, because, again, I think we're tremendous at it as a public service in terms of treating it as such. And we deliver, making sure that there's the space for everyone to be a full participant in this journey of Reconciliation within the public service, in breathing life into the calls to action and anchoring all of that in the values and ethics that we're here to celebrate and discuss today and tomorrow. So, it's a journey, and I guess that's, for me, it's success that we continue to move those yardsticks based on that.

[01:47:47 Camera shows the panelists seated on stage.]

Paul Thompson: That's great. We'll let Daniel get the last word in. You're going to start, and we can finish the conversation today.

[01:47:54 Daniel Quan-Watson appears full screen.]

Daniel Quan-Watson: I would say there are 40 million Canadians. There's this entire tiny little community called the Federal Public Service. You might think it's big, but it's 300,000 people out of 40 million. It's the single most powerful collection of power in the country. And you're being asked by the most senior public servant in the country to talk about the values that should matter to Canada and Canadians and the most powerful institution that is guiding it. That was impossible in 1989 when I started. I've retired now. I just give kudos to the Clerk, the Associate Clerk, all of the people have done all of the work to make sure this conversation happens. And take it from somebody who could not have fathomed this moment 35 years ago. Take advantage of every little bit of it and make it worth everything you possibly can.

[01:48:59 Camera shows the panelists seated on stage.]

Paul Thompson: Excellent. So, with that, I want to thank our three amazing panelists. That was a rich conversation, and we had some great insights from all your different perspectives and backgrounds and experiences. I really appreciate you sharing your frank thoughts and just putting some words of wisdom, making them available for the broader public service community. Thank you very much, all three of you.

[01:49:38 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Once again, I would like to thank our panel and remind you that several of the resources that were mentioned during the discussion are available right in our virtual kiosk. So, many of the resources that have been mentioned are available in our virtual kiosks, so I invite you to please scan the code to access that information.

So, as we move to our next panelist, we're going to be queuing up a quick little video for you.

[01:50:12 Video title page. Text on screen: Reflections on Our Values: Respect for People.

[01:50:16 Niha Shahzad appears full screen. Text on screen: Niha Shahzad, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON.]

[Text on screen: Respect for people, for me, is the foundation of what equity means.]

Niha Shahzad: Respect for people, for me, is the foundation of what equity means.

[Text on screen: We need to understand that each person and each individual is going to have a different experience with that rule or that policy.]

[01:50:22 Video shows a diverse group of people sitting together at an Indigenous event.]

Niha Shahzad: That we understand that each person and each individual is going to have a different experience with that rule or that policy.

[01:50:16 Tammy Branch appears full screen. Text on screen: Tammy Branch, Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa, ON.]

[01:50:16 Text on screen: It's how we treat our colleagues, how we treat the people that work for us. It's how we respect the accountabilities that we have.]

Tammy Branch: It's how we treat our colleagues, how we treat the people that work for us. It's how we respect the accountabilities that we have.

[01:50:37 Video shows two people raising a Pride flag.]

[01:50:37 Text on screen: It's about recognizing the dignity and value of each individual.]

Narrator not shown: It's about recognizing the dignity and value of each individual.

[01:50:44 Raoul Ntwali appears full screen. Text on screen: Raoul Ntwali, Canada Revenue Agency, Charlottetown, PEI.]

Raoul Ntwali: For me, respecting someone means recognizing their unique perspectives, experiences and contributions. It doesn't matter where they come from or what role they play.

[01:50:44 Louise André appears full screen. Text on screen: Louise André, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Montreal, QC.]

[01:50:55 Video shows a diverse series of people raising their right hands during their citizenship ceremonies, and a room full of new Canadians cheering together and waving Canadian flags.]

Louise André: In our department, we're lucky enough to be able to take part in citizenship ceremonies, and these are really powerful and really moving. When I took the oath, I cried because I was so moved.

[01:51:05 Tammy Branch appears full screen.

Tammy Branch: Sometimes we need to help guide: guide our employees in the direction that we need to go. We need to be a safe space for them to express their concerns when they don't feel that they're being asked to do something that fits with their core beliefs or their sense of what their job is about.

[01:51:20 Video shows a diverse group of people working together around a table.]

Tammy Branch: If we work together, we respect each other, we can accomplish great things.

[01:51:23 Video ends with symposium title page. Text on screen: What Unites Us, Defines Us; Values and Ethics in Today's Federal Public Service.]

[01:51:45 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Now, I am truly honoured to introduce our next speaker. Yazmine Laroche is the first person with a visible disability to become a federal deputy minister in Canada and was Canada's first Deputy Minister of Public Service Accessibility. Throughout her public service career, she has been responsible for major initiatives including the New Deal for Cities and Communities, the merger of the National Archives and National Library, and the new Gordie Howe International Bridge project. She sits on the Board of Directors of the National Arts Centre, where she chairs the Human Resources Committee. She is also the Chair of the Disability Screen Office in addition to sitting on the advisory committee of the Auditor General of Canada. With that, let's warmly welcome Yazmine Laroche.

[01:52:30 Yazmine Laroche takes the stage, then appears full screen. Text on screen: Retired Deputy Minister of Public Service Accessibility, Treasury Board Secretariat.]

Yazmine Laroche: Hi, hello, hello, hello. Hi, hi, hi. It's like going back to old loves, eh? What a pleasure to see you and thank you very much for the invitation. I am delighted to be here with you today.

So, six minutes to discuss accessibility and why it matters in the context of Values and Ethics. Yikes. I feel like saying like Daniel said, because he said it so beautifully and so eloquently.

So, I'm going to try and race through some thoughts for today and, so let me start and we'll see how it goes. So, for me, accessibility is a prerequisite for putting our values into practice. Does it show respect for people when we don't provide new employees with the basic tools they need to do their jobs? Does it show respect for Canadians when we design new apps that don't work with screen readers?

Does it show respect for colleagues to tell them that they should probably just work from home because it will just be easier for everybody? Does it show respect when a guest from outside the public service uses the posted address on the website for your office, only to find that there is no accessible entrance at that address?

These are all examples that we heard from our conversations with thousands of public servants as we designed the first public service accessibility strategy. Now, that strategy did launch a number of great initiatives, AAACT's lending library, and training modules around assistive technology; the workplace accessibility passport; a resource hub on everything to do with accessibility. And we have frameworks, and we have guidance, we have the Clerk's Call to Action, the GBA+ framework, the many offerings of the Canada School. This is all great stuff, but the problem is people need to actually use the tools, the frameworks and the training and then apply them. Otherwise, they risk becoming tick the box exercises and they don't actually result in change.

When I started my last job, the data was really concerning. Public servants with disabilities were hired less often, left more quickly, had the lowest promotion rates of any over-represented group in the Canadian public service and the highest rates of harassment and discrimination.

Although things have improved somewhat in recent years—promotion rates are rising and the departure rates of new recruits are dropping—people with disabilities still represent only 6.9% of the Canadian public service workforce.

Why should you care? Well, 27% of Canadians live with at least one disability. That's an increase of 5% between 2017 and 2022, and it will continue to rise. Soon it will be one third of the Canadian population. Everyone's lives will be touched by disability. You, a family member, a neighbour, a colleague. As has been noted, it can happen to anyone at any time. And the thing about disability is, it doesn't discriminate. It does not care about your gender, your race, your language, your age. It intersects with every identity. And when it does, too often that exacerbates inequity. Which is why when I was Deputy Minister for Public Service Accessibility, we placed so much emphasis on allyship. It is really important to advocate for your own communities, but it is equally important to support our colleagues as they struggle and advocate for inclusion.

Too often large organizations end up, and not necessarily intentionally, pitting disadvantaged or underrepresented communities against each other. It's kind of like the Hunger Games for the excluded. You have to fight each other for resources and for attention. And the only people who benefit from that are those who already hold the power and the privilege.

I'm not trying to paint an overly negative picture, but what I'm trying to convey is that values are critical. But if our written and codified values are not consistent with our culture and our behaviour, then we have a disconnect. One of the things I've learned. Feel free to applaud. It'll just make me take longer. Sorry. Sorry, John, but please feel free to applaud anytime. I welcome it.

So, one of the things I've learned over a long, long career is that there's a difference between our stated values and our unwritten values. The values that created a culture that is not always respectful, that does not always act with integrity or stewardship, and that defines excellence or, as Daniel mentioned, merit, in ways that often exclude people One of the things I learned was that there was an archetype of the model public servant that had developed over, I don't know, about 100 years. It was white, male, primarily anglophone, definitely not disabled. It was a loner, not a team player. Competitive, prickly and difficult. Good with ministers, able to manage up adroitly, and obsessed with results. Does that sound like anybody you know?

I remember once having a conversation with a deputy minister. I think we were having discussion about leadership competencies, and we were discussing somebody who worked at PCO in a pretty senior role. This person was notorious for being awful to staff and to colleagues. And I asked this DM, why does he get away with it? And I will never forget what he told me, because he's really, really smart. And I said, but you can be both smart and nice. Have you ever been told that you're too nice? As if demonstrating respect and showing empathy is a sign of weakness. This type of thinking is what has kept too many people from fulfilling their potential. And we know from a multitude of studies that organizations that create inclusive and respectful workplaces, that value diversity and leverage the talent of their people outperform those who don't.

So, what's changed? Because here I am. First federal DM with a visible disability. Well, in the mid 1990s, our first female Clerk, Jocelyne Bourgon, launched a series of initiatives that led to some impressive changes. DM committees, including the one led by the late John Tate on Values and Ethics, accelerated development programs to bring non-archetypal public servants, like Daniel, into more senior positions. A pre-qualification program to create new assistant deputy ministers and to reduce the rampant favouritism that was modelled in the old system.

The immediate results were that many more women went into leadership positions, and now we almost take it for granted. It took longer for other groups, deserving but underrepresented individuals. But change is happening. I see it, it's happening here. So now let me move on to what I think you, the people in this room, the virtual participants, can do.

First, think about the privilege of working in an organization that is designed to serve Canada and Canadians. That's our raison d'être. That is an unbelievable gift. You know, I look back and say I was an accidental public servant because I only joined so I could pay off my student debts. And of course, I got hooked. I came to understand that in the public service I could make a tangible contribution to the life of my country, which is where my own personal motto comes from: make things better.

And as I look back on my career, I can say that I did my very best to live up to that motto. Whether in developing cultural policy, designing new national infrastructure programs, creating the new deal for cities, I had the opportunity to contribute and to make a difference. And then I got to do a job that spoke directly to who I am and what I care deeply about.

Why does that matter? Because it speaks to the public service that you are becoming. It speaks to the public service's capacity for growth, and ability to change. To be and to do better. So, let me ask you to think about a few things. How do you show up? How do you give life to these core public service values? As others have said, too often we look to somebody else to take care of it. But the only way these things become real is when we apply them to the way we do things, big and small. If you're a manager, do you ask your staff, how can I help you to flourish in this job and to realize your potential?

Be curious about the world, about people who don't necessarily look like you or think like you. This is a large portion of Canadians that we serve, and they are also our colleagues. Support different perspectives and points of view. The worst thing that can happen to an organization is groupthink. This is not where the best solutions are created. I've sometimes heard it described as adversarial collaboration. I love that expression. It means making space for differences and getting comfortable with discomfort. For me, this is a way of living up to the value of respect.

I believe we give life to public service values in the way, the how, that we work with and for others. And we do it together because nobody succeeds alone.

Let me close with some thoughts from two very, very different authors, but they both inspire me so much. The first is another old white guy, dead a long time ago, E.M. Forster, whose beautiful novel Howard's End has at its very core the phrase "Only connect". And this from the late, great American activist, author, and educator Bell Hooks. "When we choose to love, we choose to move against fear, against alienation and separation. The choice to love is a choice to connect."

Think about how you can make that real in everything that you do, in everything that you do in service of Canada and Canadians and your colleagues. I want to thank you so much for the time today, and I wish you a great rest of your conversation. Keep it real. Keep it happening.

[02:08:09 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: Thank you, Madame Laroche, for closing us out and sharing some valuable insights, some key takeaways. You have a lot of big fans, including myself.

So, with that, I'd like to turn the podium over to Clerk Hannaford for some closing remarks and a preview of tomorrow's agenda.

[02:08:42 John Hannaford takes the stage and appears full screen. Text on screen: John Hannaford, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.]

John Hannaford: Thank you very much. Thanks very much, Yazmine. It was really fantastic to have the opportunity to learn from your insights and wisdom. Because it's really essential for our work concerning values and ethics.

You know, the one thing I would say based on my participation in sessions like this over the course of the last year is we're always left wanting more. And I certainly feel that way. I think this is a very, very rich conversation. And I think, from the very beginning, Chris's chat with Zabeen this morning, to the best practices, to the conversation around call to ethics, and then Yazmine's really extraordinary comments at the end.

We have a lot to learn and that's why this type of conversation is so important. I will not say an awful lot more right now, other than thank you very much to everyone for participating today across the country, around the world, and here in this room. I am inspired by these conversations. I really am. And I think Chris said it this morning, these are the things that unite us.

There are many, many things that are different, of course, across our organization. We are, notwithstanding the fact that we're not immense, we're pretty big. And that is pretty big in a number of ways. We're diverse across our geography. We're diverse in terms of the functions we perform. We're diverse in terms of our backgrounds. The things that unite us are those values. We are united by being public servants. And in this course of being public servants, we adhere to a set of Values and Ethics that are inspiring and that encapsulate the purpose that we serve. And that purpose is of extraordinary importance to our society, and it is something that should drive us as we pursue our work with excellence.

So, I'm really looking forward to coming back to this tomorrow. We'll have a conversation around our place in democracy, and we'll have a conversation around the application of new technologies and the work that we do. And I thank you again for your participation today. And thank you, Nathalie, for your emceeing.

[02:11:04 Nathalie Laviades Jodouin appears full screen.]

Nathalie Laviades Jodouin: So, thank you so much. Just very, very quickly. We, as Clerk Hannaford mentioned, have a very packed agenda again tomorrow, so we look forward to you joining us again. I'm also excited to share, and it was mentioned earlier that we have many regional events that are taking place across Canada and probably abroad as well. And we'll be bringing some highlights, so stay tuned for that.

Don't forget to send us, as well, a photo of yourself or of your team that we can display on the photo wall. So, wooclap and enter the code vephoto to do so. The photo wall will be on display at the in-person event here in Ottawa and included in the event webcast. It can also be shared on social media. And the speaker's corner will also be back tomorrow, so be sure to join us for that.

So that's it. Thank you for today. See you again tomorrow. Enjoy the rest of your day, everyone. Thank you.

[02:12:04 The CSPS animated logo appears on screen.]

[02:12:10 The Government of Canada wordmark appears and fades to black.]